rv 


'^\ 


'"Wt- 


L  IBHARY 


PRI^t'ETOW,  W.  J. 


DONATION    OF 


S  A  M  V  K  I .    A  a  N  K  W  , 

11  K     !•  H  1  L  i  II  K  I.  H  H  1  \.    h  A  . 


Letter 


No. 


|)  Case, 
Shelf, 
Book, 


^.^.f^^, 


■-  ^— i — -^g  a<g::sis 


»£.» 


<P. 


f 


HISTORY  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH.  SOUTHi 


COMPREHENDING    ALL  THE 


orFICIAL  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE; 

THE  SOUTHERN  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES,  AND 

THE  GENERAL  CONVENTION; 


WITH   SUCH   OTHER    MATTERS 


AS  ARE  NECESSARY  TO  A  RIGHT  UNDERSTANDING  OF  THE  CASE. 


NASHVILLE: 


COMPILED    AND    PrBLISlIED    BY    THE    EDITORS    AND    PUBLISHERS    OF    THE   SOUTH-WESTERN 
CHRISTIAN    ADVOCATE,    FOR    THE    METHODIST    EPISCOPAL   CHURCH,    SOUTH. 

BY    ORDER    OF    THE   LOUISVILLE    CONVENTON.  ■" 


William  Cnmeion,  Printer. 

1845. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  witin  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/liistoryoforganOOmetli 


PREFACE. 


The  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  Annual  Conferences 
in  the  slaveholding  States,  held  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May, 
1845,  after  having  resolved  to  organize  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  deemed  it  necessary  to  lay  before 
the  public  a  historical  statement  of  the  events  which  led  to 
the  formation  of  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  and  of  the 
organization  of  that  connexion,  in  order  to  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  action,  principles  and  motives  of  Southern 
Methodists  in  the  premises,  and  to  preserve  for  future  time  a 
faithful  record  of  those  important  facts  which  might  now  be 
collected  with  facility,  but  which,  if  not  embodied  in  a  perma- 
nent form,  would  be  liable  to  be  lost  to  posterity. 
'  In  accordance  with  this  design,  the  undersigned  were  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  compile  and  publish  a  History  of  the 
Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  un- 
der certain  instructions  given  by  the  Convention.  They  have 
accordingly  endeavored  in  the  best  manner  in  their  power, 
under  the  circumstances,  to  fulfil  the  important  trust  confided 
to  them,  and  now  present  to  the  public  the  fruit  of  their  labors. 

It  is  matter  of  regret,  that  as  all  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee have  been  compelled,  regularly  and  much  the  greater 
portion  of  their  time,  to  be  employed  in  other  duties  which 
could  not  be  neglected,  the  work  has  been  compiled  at  inter- 
vals redeemed  from  other  duties,  and  not  as  would  have  been 
desirable,  by  giving  to  it  undivided  and  continuous  attention. 
If,  on  this  account,  the  work  shall  be  found  to  possess  defects 
or  blemishes,  the  committee  console  themselves  with  the  some- 
what confident  hope,  that  every  thing  of  real   importance  to 


IV  PREFACE. 

the  .subject  will  be  found  recorded,  though  in  a  form  less  per- 
fect than  was  wished.  Though  the  compilers  are  identified 
with  the  Southern  organization  in  fact,  feeling  and  principle, 
they  have  endeavored  to  state  facts  and  arguments  with  fair- 
ness and  candor. 

It  may  be  proper  to  remark,  that  compliance  with  that  part 
of  the  committee's  instructions  which  required  the  publication 
of  all  the  speeches  delivered  in  the  General  Conference  and 
in  the  Convention  on  the  subject,  was  found  impracticable. 
A  very  large  proportion  of  the  speeches  delivered  in  the  Con- 
vention, were  not  furnished  to  the  committee,  and  it  was  not 
deemed  advisable  to  publi.sh  a  part  without  the  whole,  nor  to 
publish  those  of  the  General  Conference  without  those  of  the 
Convention;  consequently  all  have  been  omitted.  Should  it 
be  judged  best,  they  may,  at  a  future  time,  be  embodied  in  a 
separate  volume. 

Having  acted  with  reference  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the 

good  of  his  church  in  performing  the  work  assigned  them,  the 

committee  now,  in  sending  it  abroad  to  the  world,  humbly 

commend  it  to  the  Divine  blessing. 

J.  B.  McFkrrin, 

M.  M.  Henkle, 

A.  L.  P.  Green, 

F.  E.  Prrrs, 

December,  1815.  John  W.  Hanner. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  subject  of  slavery  has  been  one  of  great  perplexity  iu 
the  Methodist  Churcli,  from  the  time  at  which  it  first  was  made 
a  subject  of  Church  legislation.  And  had  the  Churcli  followed 
the  example  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  in  this  respect,  and  left 
the  gospel,  in  the  exercise  of  its  inherent  energies,  to  work 
out  its  legitimate  results  on  the  civil  relations  and  moral  duties 
of  society,  the  effect  ^vould  probably  have  been  much  more 
beneficial  on  all  the  relations  involved,  than  it  has  been  by 
pm'suing  an  opposite  course  of  policy.  At  an  early  period, 
however,  in  the  history  of  American  Methodism,— M'hen  there 
were  but  twenty-four  preachers  who  "  agreed  to  sit  in  Con- 
ference on  the  original  plan  as  Methodists,"  and  several  years 
before  the  organization  of  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States — it  was  deemed  advisable  by  those  preachers 
to  legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  it  has  been  a  fruitful 
som'ce  of  difficulty  ever  since.  The  first  action  of  this  kind, 
of  which  we  have  any  account,  occured  at  a  Conference  held 
in  Baltimore,  in  April,  1780,  "  where  the  Northern  preachers 
only  attended." — Lee's  Hist,  of  3Ielh.,p.  70, 

The  followdng  is  their  enactment: — ■ 

"  Quest.  Ought  not  this  Conference  to  require  those  travel- 
ing preachers  who  hold  slaves,  to  give  promises  to  set  them  fiee? 

"  Ans.  Yes. 

"  Quest.  Docs  this  Conference  acknowledge  that  slavery  is 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature,  and  hurtful  to 
society;  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  pure  reli- 
gion, and  doing  that  which  we  w^ould  not  others  should  do  to 
us  and  ours?  Do  we  pass  our  disappi'obation  on  all  our  friends 
who  keep  slaves,  and  advise  their  freedonf?" 

Of  this  action,  Mr.  Lee,  the  early  and  faithful  historian  of 
the  Church,  says: — "  It  .is  evident  that  the  preachers  in  this 
case  went  too  far  in  their  censures;  and  their  language  in 
their  resolves  was  calculated  to  iriitate  the  minds  of  our  peo- 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

pie,  and  by  no  means  calculated  to  convince  them  of  their 
errors." 

The  Conference  having  entered  on  this  dangerous  business, 
could  not  well  abandon  it,  though  often  compelled  to  change, 
modify,  repeal,  suspend,  and  re-enact,  from  that  time  down  to 
the  final  consummation  of  the  work  in  1844. 

In  one  material  point,  this  first  action  was  more  exception- 
able than  any  which  followed  it,  previous  to  the  last:  it  re- 
cognizes no  exception  under  the  retiuirement  to  manumit,  in 
favor  of  persons  who  are  restrained  by  State  laws  from  manu- 
mitting their  slaves. 

In  all  other  action,  save  that  of  1844,  this  exception  is  fairly 
recognized,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  various  enact- 
ments on  this  subject;  and  much  as  has  been  said,  ofiicially 
and  unofiicially,  of  the  stringency,  the  severity,  the  "injurious 
and  ruinous  tendencies"  of  the  enactments  of  1784, '96,  1800, 
and  others,  none  of  them  all  brings  the  Church  into  such  direct 
and  irreconcilable  antagonism  with  the  laws  of  the  country 
as  the  Jirst  and  the  last — those  of  1780  and  1844. 

In  1783,  certain  vague  menaces  (for  lack  of  a  better  name) 
were  made  against  slaveholders,  but  they  were  against  those 
only  "  who  held  slaves  cnntrarij  to  the  laics  v/tich  authorize  their 
freedom.''''  In  April,  1784,  action  was  taken  against  those  local 
preachers  "  who  will  not  emancipate  their  slaves  in  the  States 
iohere  the  laws  admit  it,''''  and  at  the  same  Conference,  those 
traveling  preachers  who  "refuse  to  manumit  their  slaves  where 
the  law  permits. '''' 

In  December  of  the  same  year,  by  the  Conference  which 
gave  name  and  organization  to  the  Church,  were  enacted 
those  ultra  and  severe  rules  which  had  to  be  suspended  in  six 
months  after  their  passage,  and  which  have  ever  been  con- 
demned by  the  united  voice  of  the  \A^or]d  and  the  Church,  as 
impolitic  and  ruinous.  Yet  these  universally  condemned  rules 
have  this  explanatory  clause  appended  to  them: — "  These 
rules  are  to  afl^ect  the  members  of  our  society  no  farther  than 
as  they  are  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  they 
reside.''''  And  even  in  a  State  which  permitted  emancipation, 
the  same  Conference  enacted  that  the  brethren  should  "  have 
tiro  years  from  the  notice  given,  to  consider  the  expcdiericc  of 
contpliancc  or  non-compliance  with  these  rides.'''' 

The  rules  of  1796  were  to  be  enforced  only  "«5  the  laws  of 
the  States  respectively,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  will  admit.'''' 

Agreeably  to  the  law  of  1800,  now  in  force,  and  applicable 
to  the  cases  of  Mr.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew,  traveling 
preachers  becoming  the  owners  of  slaves,  are  required  to 
"  execute,  if  it  be  pract'iadie,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such 
slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  Slate  in  wh'ich  they  live.'''' 


INTRODUCTION.  Tli 

In  1804,  members  were  authorized  to  sell  slaves-  in  cases  whei-e 
a.  committee  might  judge  it  to  be  an  act  of  "  mercy  or  humani- 
ty" to  do  so.  At  the  same  time,  persons  residing  in  "North 
Carolina,  South  CaroHna,  Georgia,  and  Tennessee,"  (States 
understood  as  prohibiting  emancipation,)  were  exempted  from 
the  operation  of  the  rules. 

In  1808,  the  General  Conference,  finding  the  subject  ut- 
terly unmanageable,  abolished  all  rules  respecting slaveholding 
among  the  membership  of  the  Church,  and  authorized  "  each 
Annual  Conference  to  form  its  own  regulations  relative  to  buy- 
ing and  selling  slaves." 

In  1812,  this  last  regulation  was  re-enacted,  prefaced  by  an 
explanatory  clause,  assigning  as  the  reason  of  the  rule,  "that 
the  laws  of  some  of  the  States  do  not  admit  emancipation,  with- 
out a  special  act  of  the  legislature." 

The  law  of  1816  declares  slaveholders  ineligible  to  any  offi- 
cial station  in  the  Church,  where  "  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which 
they  live  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated  slave 
to  enjoy  JreedomP 

This  necessary  exception  in  favor  of  persons  who  are  not 
permitted,  by  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  reside,  to 
emancipate  their  slaves,  appears  never  to  have  been  lost  sight 
of  after  the  first  random  action  on  the  subject,  down  to  1840. 
In  the  General  Conferences  of  1836  and  1840,  it  was  fully 
recognized.  The  address  of  the  latter  Conference  to  the 
British  Wesleyan  Conference,  holds  the  following  explicit 
language  on  this  subject: — "  It  is  impossible  to  frame  a  rule  on 
slavery,  proper  for  all  our  people  in  all  the  States  alike.  But 
our  Church  is  extended  through  all  the  States,  and  as  it  would 
be  wrong  and  unscriptural  to  enact  rules  of  discipline  in  oppo- 
sition to  tlie  constitution  and  laics  of  the  State  on  this  subject,  so 
also  would  it  not  be  equitable  or  scriptural  to  confound  the  posi- 
tions of  our  ministers  and  people,  (so  different  as  they  are  in 
different  States,)  with  respect  to  the  ynoral  question  which 
slavery  involves.  Under  the  administration  of  the  venerable 
Dr.  Coke,  this  plain  distinction  was  once  overlooked,  and  it 
was  attempted  to  urge  emancipation  in  all  the  States;  but  the 
attempt  proved  idmost  ruinous,  and  was  soon  abandoned  by 
the  Doctor  himself." 

It  was  this  keeping  aloof  from  the  stronger  forms  of  direct 
antagonism  with  civil  authority  and  State  laws,  that  enabled 
the  Church  to  maintain  a  footing  in  the  South  proper  at  all. 
But  while  this  was  done,  it  was  no  more  than  barely  done,  and 
such,  therefore,  was  the  position  of  the  Church  as  to  keep  the 
civil  authorities  feelingly  alive  to  any,  the  least,  encroach- 
ment, or  even  approach  to  their  ground.  When,  therefore, 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  required  of  two  of  her  min- 


Vlll  INTRODT^CTION. 

isters  the  performance  of  that  which  the  State  laws  forbade 
and  made  penal,  thus  enjoining-  a  violation  of  the  civil  laws 
as  a  moral  duty — or  at  least  an  ecclesiastical  one,  and  bring- 
ing the  Church  into  conflict  with  the  State,  however  strongly 
the  measure  may  have  been  demanded  by  the  state  of  populai' 
sentiment  and  feeling  in  the  North,  the  representatives  of  the 
Church  South  felt  that  they  were  compelled  to  disavow  the 
whole  proceeding,  and  disconnect  themselves  from  it  entirely, 
or  be  themselves  ejected  from  their  fields  of  labor,  and  see 
Methodism  utterly  rooted  out  and  banished  from  the  great 
South.  What  they  have  done,  they  did  under  a  solemn  con- 
viction of  uncontrollable  necessity  and  positive  duty  to  God, 
themselves,  the  Church,  and  the  world.  And  that  the  true 
character  of  their  circumstances,  their  action,  and  their  mo- 
tives, might  be  known  and  read  of  all  men,  they  have  directed 
the  compilation  of  this  brief  History  of  the  Organization  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 


HISTOM  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION  ' 

OF    THE 

METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH. 


CHAPTER  I. 

F7wn  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding. 

A  SHORT  time  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chm-ch,  in  1844,  there  seemed 
to  be  a  general  expectation  throughout  most  parts  of  the 
Church,  that  the  question  which  had  caused  so  much  difficulty 
for  a  period  of  sixty  years,  would  not  be  likely  at  that  Confer- 
ence to  produce  its  ordinary  amount  of  excitement  and  agita- 
tion, and  that  the  session  would  be  one  of  unusual  harmony, 
especially  in  so  far  as  the  subject  of  Slavery  and  Abolition 
were  concerned.  But  about  the  time  of  the  assembling  of  the 
Conference,  it  became  generally  understood  that  in  portions  of 
the  North  numerous  petitions,  of  abolition  character,  had  been 
gotten  up,  and  would  be  laid  before  the  General  Conference, 
bringing  up  the  whole  subject  for  some  form  of  action.  At  the 
same  time,  it  became  known  in  the  Aorth,  that  the  Rev.  James 
Osgood  Andrew,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  had  become  in  some  way  connected  with  slavery;  and 
soon  the  expectation  came  to  be  general,  that  a  trj'ing  conflict 
awaited  the  Conference. 

Accordingly,  so  soon  as  the  organizing  and  introductory 
business — which  occupied  the  first  two  days — was  despatched, 
on  the  third  day  of  the  session,  a  petition  from  a  IVorthcrn 
Annual  Conference,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  was  introduced, 
which  at  once  opened  the  controversy.  For  beside  the  exciting 
character  of  the  subject  embraced  in  the  petition,  it  was 
expressed  in  language  which  many  members  considered  dis- 
courteous, and  even  disrespectful  to  the  General  Conference; 
and  a  leading  member  who  afterwards  voted  with  the  majority 
throughout,  spoke  of  those  expressions  as  "  highly  exceptiona- 
ble." After  some  debate,  the  petition  Avas,  however,  referred 
to  a  committee  raised  on  that  general  subject. 

1 


2  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

On  the  fifth  day  of  the  session,  a  resolution  was  offered, 
instructing  the  slavery  committee  to  report  directly  and  explicitly 
on  the  points  referred  to  them  in  the  petitions  presented,  and 
as  speedily  as  possible.  Upon  this  resolution  a  spirited  contro- 
versy grew  up,  in  which  considerable  feeling  was  manifested, 
and  in  which  six  or  seven  members  participated.  On  the  follow- 
ing day,  the  sixth  of  the  session,  the  subject  came  up  again  in  a 
new  form,  and  under  circumstances  which  evidently  exerted  a 
capital  influence  in  giving  direction  and  character  to  the  whole 
subsequent  action  of  the  General  Conference  on  this  subject. 
Rev.  Francis  A.  Harding  had  been  suspended  by  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  for  failing  to  manumit 
certain  slaves  which  had  come  into  his  possession  b}^  marriage; 
and  the  case  came  up  before  the  General  Conference  on  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  The  otiicial 
record  showed  the  following  proceedings  in  the  case  on  the 
part  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  after  its  reference  to  a  com- 
mittee:— 

"The  committee  reported,  that  Mr.  Harding  had  become 
possessed  of  five  slaves:  one  named  Harry,  aged  fifty-two;  one 
woman,  named  Maria,  aged  fifty;  one  man,  named  John,  aged 

twenty-two;  a  girl,  named  ,  aged  thirteen;  and  a  child, 

aged  two  years;  and  recommended  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution  for  adoption: — 

"Whereas  the  Baltimore  Conference  cannot,  and  will  not, 
tolerate  slavery  in  any  of  its  members, — 

'■'■Resolved,  That  brother  Harding  be  required  to  execute  a 
deed  of  manumission,  and  have  the  same  enrolled  in  the  proper 
court,  and  give  to  this  Conference,  during  this  present  session, 
a  pledge  that  this  shall  be  done  during  the  present  year. 

"Brother  Harding  having  stated  the  impossibility,  with  his 
views,  of  his  compliance  \vith  this  resolution,  Mr.  Collins  moved 
for  his  suspension  until  he  gave  sufficient  assurance  of  his  com- 
pliance. 

"The  matter  was  again  referred  to  a  committee  of  five,  for 
further  investigation,  who  reported  that  they  had  entirely  failed 
to  induce  brother  Harding  to  comply  with  the  wishes  of  the 
Conference. 

"Brothers  Collins  and  Emory  moved  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  adopted: — 

"  '■Resolved,  That  brother  Harding  be  suspended  until  the 
next  Annual  Conference,  or  until  he  assures  the  Episcopacy 
that  he  has  taken  the  necessary  steps  to  secure  the  freedom  of 
his  slaves.' " 

This  case  derived  much  of  its  importance  and  influence  from 
the  fact  that  it  came  from  what  is  called  a  conservative  Confer- 
ence, and  one  which  had  previously  acted  with  the  South  in 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  3 

resisting  the  encroachments  of  abohtionism.  The  abolition 
North  constantly  denounced  slavery  as  necessarily  and  under 
all  circumstances  a  sin,  and  consistently  and  perseveringly 
contended  for  its  entire  banishment  from  the  Church,  in  all  its 
forms  and  relations.  The  South,  though  admitting  slavery  to 
be  a  great  evil,  as  declared  in  the  Discipline,  maintained  that 
it  was  not  necessarily  sinful  in  all  cases,  and  that  it  was  impos- 
sible for  the  Church  to  exist  in  the  South  in  a  state  of  entire 
disconnection  from  this  civil  institution  of  the  country.  Th<e 
middle,  or  conservative  Conferences,  though  anti-slavery  in 
principle,  had  uniformly,  for  a  long  period,  concurred  with  tlw. 
practical  views  of  the  South,  and  co-operated  with  them  in 
opposing  Northern  encroachments  upon  this  conservative 
ground  of  the  Discipline.  In  this  case,  the  South  regarded  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  and  those  acting  with  it,  as  abandoning 
the  vital  conservatism  of  the  Discipline,  and  the  only  ground 
upon  which  the  Church  in  the  South  could  possibly  enjoy 
security  or  even  existence,  and  as  yielding  to  abolitionism  the 
distinguishing  principle  by  which  it  is  characterized. 

Harding  had  married  a  lady  who  was  the  owner  of  five 
slaves,  and  as  he  refused  to  manumit  them,  it  was  contended 
that  he  had  violated  the  law  of  the  Discipline  governing  the 
case,  and  he  was  punished  accordingly.  That  law  reads  thus: 
"When  any  traveling  preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave 
or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character 
in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable,  a  legal 
emancipation  of  said  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives." 

The  whole  matter  of  course  turned  on  the  question,  was  it 
"practicable"  for  Harding  to  execute  such  "a  legal  emancipa- 
tion, conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lived"? 
He  maintained  that  it  was  not  practicable,  and  that  to  requiif 
him  to  do  what  was  legally  impracticable,  was  a  violation  of 
the  law  of  the  Discipline.  His  advocate.  Dr.  W.  A.  Smith,  of 
Virginia,  defended  him  in  this  position  on  the  two  following 
general  grounds:  first,  that  he  was  not  the  legal  owner  of  the 
slaves;  and  secondly,  that  if  he  were,  the  laws  of  Maryland  did 
not  permit  emancipation.  In  support  of  these  grounds  of 
defence,  the  legal  opinions  of  Mr.  Justice  Merrick,  and  of  Judge 
Key,  were  introduced  and  read,  as  follows: — 

"At  the  request  of  Mr.  Harding,  I  have  to  state,  that  under 
the  laws  of  Maryland,  no  slave  can  be  emancipated,  to  remain 
in  that  State,  nor  unless  provision  be  made  by  the  person  eman- 
cipating him  for  his  removal  from  the  State,  which  removal 
must  take  place,  unless  for  good  and  suflicient  reason,  the  com- 
petent authorities  grant  permission  to  the  manumitted  slave  to 
remain. 


4  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

"There  has  latety  (winter  of  1843)  been  a  statute  enacted  by 
the  State  Legislature,  securing  to  married  females  the  property 
(slaves  of  course  included)  which  was  theirs  at  the  time  of  their 
marriage,  and  protecting-  it  from  the  power  and  liabilities  of 
their  husbands.         [Signed]  Wm.  D.  Merrick." 

"The  Rev.  Mr.  Harding  having  married  Miss  Swan,  who,  at 
the  time  of  h,er  marriage,  was  entitled  to  some  slaves,  I  am 
requested  to  say,  Whether  he  can  legally  manumit  them,  or 
not?  By  an  act  of  Assembly,  no  person  can  manumit  a  slave 
in  Maryland:  and  by  another  act  of  our  Assembly,  a  husband 
has  no  other  or  further  right  to  his?  wdfe's  slaves  than  their  labor, 
while  he  lives.  He  can  neither  sell  nor  liberate  them.  Nei- 
ther can  he  and  his  wife,  either  jointly  or  separately,  manumit 
her  slaves,  by  deed,  or  otherwise.  A  reference  to  the  Acts  of 
Assembly  of  Maryland  will  show  this.  Edmund  Key. 

''Prince  George  county,  April  25,  1844." 

The  different  statutes  of  the  State  of  Maryland  to  the  same 
effect,  Avere  also  introduced  and  read.  It  was  thus  made  to 
appear  quite  evident  that  the  Conference  had  required  of  Mr. 
Harding,  as  necessary  to  maintain  his  ministerial  standing,  an 
act  which  was  prohibited  by  the  law  of  the  State,  and  with 
regard  to  property  which  the  law  withheld  from  his  legal  own- 
ership. The  able  representative  of  the  Baltimore  Conference 
in  the  case,  the  Rev.  John  A.  Collins,  endeavored,  hoM^ever,  to 
counteract  the  whole  force  of  this  proof,  by  showing  that 
emancipation  was  practicable,  by  removing  the  liberated  slave 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  State.  This  is  most  true,  for  no  State 
law  can  operate  out  of  the  limits  of  the  State  by  which  it  was 
enacted;  but  it  is  equally  true  of  every  State  in  the  Union;  and 
thus  by  making  emancipation  'practicable  every  Avhere  and  by 
every  man,  it  renders  the  apparently  important  condition  of 
"practicability,"  as  found  in  the  law  of  the  Discipline,  as  singu- 
larly absurd  as  it  is  inoperative  and  unmeaning. 

With  regard  to  the  impossibility  of  manumission  by  Harding, 
on  the  ground  that  the  law  vested  the  property  in  his  wife,  and 
gave  him  no  legal  control  of  the  matter  whatever,  the  advocate 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference  took  ground  rather  calculated  to 
excite  unpleasant  apprehensions,  than  to  convince  the  opposite 
party  of  the  correctness  of  his  doctrines.  Some  regarded  him 
as  making  the  Mdll  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  superior  to 
the  statutes  of  the  State,  and  independent  of  the  law  of  the 
Discipline.  The  manner  in  which  he  arraigned  and  denounced 
that  law  of  Mar3'land,  was  thought  to  augur  inauspiciously  for 
whatever  called  for  any  thing  like  respectful  deference  to  the 
civil  regulations  of  the  country.  The  following  are  some  of 
his  remarks  on  that  subject: — 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  5 

"  The  law  of  1843  is  a  strange  and  singular  law.  Its  funda- 
mental feature  is  against  the  law  of  God,  for  that  makes  man 
the  head  of  his  wife,  and  this  law  takes  from  him  the  position 
assigned  to  him  by  the  Supreme  Being.  And  I  am  satisfied 
that  this  law  will  work  such  evil,  that  as  a  matter  of  necessity 
it  will  have  to  be  repealed.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  you  will  not 
judge  us  by  this  law.  We  cannot  answer  for  the  tergiversa- 
tion of  the  laws  of  Maryland,  and  cannot  conform  to  all  their 
changes.  As  they  have  gone  so  far  as  to  pass  a  law  deposing 
man  from  his  rightful  place  in  the  domestic  economy — a  place 
assigned  to  him  from  the  beginning  of  time  by  positive  divine 
injunction,  they  may  pass  a  law  requiring  him  to  obey  his  wife. 

"  He  wished  also  to  correct  another  wrong  impression.  It 
was  partially  believed  that  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  sus- 
pending Mr.  Harding  had  acted  in  ignorance  of  the  law  of 
1843.  He  begged  to  correct  this  misconception.  They  had 
before  them  the  opinion  of  Justice  Merrick  with  regard  to  this 
very  law.  But  he  would  say  boldly  that  if  the  law  had  been 
tenfold  ivhat  it  is,  if  it  had  actually,  outright,  and  downright,  idthout 
any  possibility  of  avoiding  it,  taken  these  slaves  from  Harding's 
control,  the  Conference  would  still  have  acted  just  as  they  did;  because 
they  did  not  intend  to  change  their  ground,  and  could  not  pretend  to 
alter  their  views  with  every  shifting  of  the  Legislature.  Beside,  the 
Legislature  did  not  compel  Mr.  Harding  to  become  a  slave- 
holder." 

Very  much  to  the  same  effect  spoke  another  representative 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference  on  that  occasion,  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Griffith.     He  remarked, — 

"He  [Mr.  Harding]  could  disentangle  himself  in  an  hour  if 
he  liked,  the  laws  of  Maryland,  notwithstanding.  In  point  of 
fact,  the  law  against  manumission  was  inoperative.  It  would 
be  indeed  strange  if  a  freeman  had  not  the  right  to  make  that 
disposal  of  his  property  which  he  might  please  to  make. — 
Maryland  had  never  said  that  a  slave  might  be  taken  up  and 
sold — she  had  never  declared  that  slaves  were  property,  and 
then  in  the  same  breath,  that  men  should  not  do  what  they 
thought  fit  with  their  own  property,  and  that  she  assumed  the 
right  to  do  that  which  she  forbade  the  owner  doing.  No,  sir, 
they  know  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  set  his  slaves  free — they 
know  the  illegality  and  imperfection  of  any  act  to  the  contrary— 
and  yet  they  try  to  control  it,  and  ward  off  the  consequences  by 

this  kind  of he  hardly  knew  how  to  designate  such  kind 

of  legislation." 

This  avowed,  and  almost  boasted  disregard,  if  not  contempt, 
for  the  laws  of  the  land,  did  not  fail  to  produce  alarm  as  to  the 
security  of  personal  character,  and  the  stability  of  the  union 
of  the  Church;  especially  when  the  whole  was  placed^primarily 

1* 


6  mSTORY  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION  OP  THE 

on  an  unauthorized  Annual  Conference  resolution,  contra- 
vening the  provisions  of  the  \aM^  of  the  Church,  and  was  so 
shaped  and  applied  as  to  include,  by  implication,  in  its  condem- 
natory scope,  hundreds  perhaps  of  ministers,  who  had  felt 
themselves  protected  alike  by  the  law  of  God  and  the  Chm'ch, 
in  the  peculiar  relations  they  were  compelled  to  sustain. 

There  were,  to  be  sure,  various  minor  points  involved  in  the 
case,  w^hich  might  have  had  an  influence  on  the  decision;  but 
A\"e  have  only  to  do  with  the  great  leading  principles  avowed 
and  advocated  by  the  majority.  The  case,  after  having  been 
before  the  Conference  five  or  six  days,  w^as  finally  disposed  of, 
on  the  11th  of  May, — the  General  Conference  refusing  to 
reverse  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  by  a  vote  of 
117  to  56. 

There  were  two  things  especially  in  this  case  w^hich  gave 
painful  concern  to  the  Southern  members,  as  indicating  a 
prevailing  tendency  to  a  union  of  the  Conservatives  and  Abo- 
litionists against  the  South,  and  against  the  Discipline.  The 
first  was,  an  openly  avowed  purpose,  as  we  have  seen,  to  dis- 
regard the  requirements  of  State  laws  where  they  came  into 
conflict  with  Annual  Conference  resolutions  or  plans  of  admin- 
istering the  Discipline,  and  that  purpose  carried  fully  into 
practical  eifect,  as  in  the  present  case.  The  second  was  a  new 
construction  put  on  the  slavery  law  of  the  Discipline,  intended 
to  justify  such  conflict  with  statutory  enactments,  and  resistance 
of  them. 

There  are  two  Church  enactments,  passed  at  different  periods, 
different  in  phraseology,  but  heretofore  understood  to  be  of 
equivalent  import;  the  one  applying  specifically  to  itinerant 
preachers,  the  other  generally  to  official  members.  The  advocate 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  and  representative  of  conservative 
Northern  opinions,  gave  the  following  interpretation  of  these 
Church  statutes: — 

"  Official  Members.  The  rule  on  this  point  takes  a  stronger 
tie,  and  is  different  in  that  respect  to  the  rule  affecting  private 
members. 

" '  We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever  convinced  of  the 
great  evil  of  slavery:  therefore  no  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible 
to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  hereafter,  where  the  laws 
of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and 
2)ermit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom? 

"  Oflicial  members  are  required  to  emancipate.  The  private 
member  is  not.  He  must  manumit,  but  still  the  rule  comes 
down  with  comparatively  less  strictness,  applyin<^  only  in  such 
States  as  will  permit  the  slave  to  '  enjoy  his  freedom.'' 

"  Traveling  Preachers.  Here  the  Discipline  is  still  more 
stringent. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  7 

" '  When  any  traveling  preacher  becomes  the  owner  of  a 
slave  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial 
character  in  our  Chui'ch,  vinless  he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable, 
a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws 
of  the  State  in  which  he  lives.' 

"  Here  nothing  is  said  about  the  liberated  slave  being  per- 
mitted to  enjoy  freedom.  The  simple  act  of  manumission  is 
b-eated  of,  and  made  compulsory  on  the  traveling  preacher.  '  If 
it  be  practicable,'  he  is  to  manumit.  There  is  no  other  condi- 
tion; the  exception  is  narrowed  down,  and  then  the  law  is 
binding,  and  compels  him  to  manumit." 

It  had  been  before  contended,  as  we  have  seen,  that  legis- 
lative enactments  of  a  prohibitory  character,  did  not  render 
manumission  "impracticable;"  and  here  we  learn  that  wher- 
ever it  is  practicable,  (and  that  is  every  where,  agreeably  to 
tliis  doctrine,)  the  rule  is  compulsory  on  the  traveling  preacher, 
whether  the  manumitted  slave  can  enjoy  freedom,  or  is  subject 
to  re-enslavement.*  This  new  construction,  especially  when 
carried  out  by  a  large  majority  of  the  General  Conference,  the 
Southern  delegates  regarded  as  a  practical  nullification  of  the 
protective  exceptions  to  the  slavery  law  of  the  Church;  and 
they  felt  assured  that  upon  these  principles,  no  man  who  was 
in  any  way  connected  with  slavery,  was  secure  in  his  ministe- 
rial standing,  no  matter  what  legal  encumbrances  or  disabilities 
might  be  thrown  about  his  circumstances.  The  force  of  this 
reasoning,  or  rather  construction,  it  is  true,  was  attempted  to 
be  met  by  Harding's  advocate,  by  bringing  a  declaratory  reso- 
lution of  the  General  Conference  of  1840  to  bear  on  the  case. 
That  resolution  appeared  to  be  full  to  the  point,  and  quite 
conclusive.     It  reads  thus: — • 

^'Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Confer- 

*This  doctrine  or  construction  of  law  is  certainly  at  variance  with  the  received 
opinions  of  the  Church.  The  Bishops,  in  their  address  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1840,  hold  this  language  on  this  point:  "In  aZ/ enactments  of  tJie  Church 
relating  to  slavery,  a  due  and  respectful  regard  has  been  had  to  the  laws  of  the 
States,  never  requiring  emancipation  in  contravention  of  civil  authority,  or  where 
the  laws  of  the  States  would  not  allow  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  his  freedom." 
The  answer  of  the  same  General  Conference  to  the  Address  of  the  British  Con- 
ference, held  similar  language,  and  tlie  same  doctrine,  in  the  following  passage: 
"  While,  therefore,  the  Church  has  encouraged  emancipation  in  those  States 
where  the  laics  permit  it,  and  allowed  the  freed  man  to  enjoy  freedom,  we  hava 
refrained,  for  conscience  sake,  from  all  intermeddling  with  the  subject  in  those 
otherStates  where  the  laws  make  it  criminal."  Agreeably  to  this  doctrine  of  the 
Bishops  and  of  the  General  Conference,  in  all  cases,  where  either  emancipation 
is  impracticable,  or  the  emancipated  slave  cannot  enjoy  freedom,  the  holder  of 
slaves  is  fully  protected  by  the  law  of  the  Discipline.  And  this  view  of  the  law, 
it  is  believed,  was  universal,  up  to  the  General  Conference  of  1844.  Nay,  more; 
even  in  that  Conference,  the  author  of  the  resolution  adopted  aaraiuet  Biphof) 
Andrew,  Mr.  Finley,  strongly  contends  for  the  same  doctrine.  He  says,  "When 
the  master  cannot  set  his  slaves  free,  and  that  slave  enjoy  his  freedom; — when  it 
is  beyond  the  power  of  the  master  to  free  his  slave,  or  that  slave  to  enjoy  his  free- 
dom, slavery  is  fixed  on  the  absolute  necessity  of  tho  ca^';  and  if  there  be  any 
such  case,  it  could  not  and  should  not  be  called  a  sni." 


8  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THB 

ences,  in  General  Conference  assembled,  That  under  the 
provisional  exception  of  the  general  rule  of  the  Church  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  own- 
ership of  slave  property,  in  States  or  Territories  where  the 
laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no  legal  barrier  to  the  election 
or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known 
in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot, 
tlierefore,  be  considered  as  operating  any  forfeiture  of  right  in 
view  of  such  election  or  ordination." 

This,  as  it  embraced  "  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in 
the  ministry,"  it  was  insisted,  covered  the  whole  ground  and 
determined  the  proper  course  of  action.  But  the  opposing 
advocate  contended  most  earnestly  that  the  resolution  could 
have  no  possible  application  to  the  present  case,  as  it  was 
adopted  exclusively  with  reference  to  the  case  of  certain  local 
preachers  resident  in  the  Virginia  portion  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference  territory,  from  whom  ordination  had  been  withheld 
on  account  of  their  connection  with  slavery,  and  upon  whose 
grievance,  as  laid  before  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  this 
action  was  taken. 

The  proper  adjustment  of  this  question  is  certainly  a  very 
important  point  in  the  general  issue;  for  if  this  be  indeed  an 
official  decision  of  the  General  Conference,  applicable  to  all 
rninisters,  having  the  authority  of  a  declaratory  act  of  the  body, 
then  it  utterly  defeats  the  position  assumed  in  the  case  of 
Harding.  It  is  therefore  material  that  the  true  design  and 
bearing  of  the  resolution  be  compassed,  if  possible.  The 
language  could  not  vi^ell  be  broader  or  more  comprehensive 
than  it  is,  had  the  object  been  to  embrace  the  entire  ministry, 
traveling  as  well  as  local;  and  we  must  go  beyond  the  resolu- 
tion itself,  which  includes  specifically  "  the  various  grades  of 
office  known  in  the  ministry,"  to  find  a  less  inclusive  import  to 
the  language.  As  the  history  of  the  resolution,  however,  is 
given  in  explanation  of  its  true  meaning,  the  fidelity  of  history 
demands  a  still  fuller  account  of  the  origin  and  object  of  this 
enactment.  The  case  of  certain  local  preachers — known  as 
the  Westmoreland  case — was  referred  to  a  committee  in  the 
General  Conference  of  1840,  and  at  the  same  time  the  petitions, 
&c.,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  ^vere  referred  to  a  committee 
on  slavery  of  one  member  from  each  Conference.  This  latter 
committee  reported  before  the  first  named  one,  but  did  not 
report  on  the  various  particular  points  presented  in  the  papers 
referred  to  them.*     This  was  unsatisfactory  to  many,  and  a 

*We  have  seen  that  to  prevent  the  bringing  in  of  a  like  indeterminate  report 
at  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  a  resolution  was  introduced  presently  after 
the  opening  of  the  Session,  instructing  the  Committee  on  Slavery  to  "report  di- 
rtctly  on  iha  points,  the  alleged /acts  and  arguments  submitted,  die." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  "J 

remedy  was  sought  to  be  applied,  by  requesting  the  special 
committee  on  the  Westmoreland  case,  to  frame  their  report 
Avith  a  view  to  that  end.  The  account  of  this  matter  we  give 
in  the  language  of  one  Avhose  intimate  connection  Avith  the 
transaction  enabled  him  to  understand  all  its  details  more  per- 
fectly than  any  other  individual.  lie  says,  "  The  committee 
[Westmoreland  committee]  were  respectfully  requested  by  all 
the  Bisltops  in  council,  when  it  was  ascertained  that  the  general 
committee  did  not  intend  to  do  so,  to  prepare  a  full  and  analytical 
view  of  the  whole  law  of  the  Church  on  slavery,  particularly  in 
relation  to  the  rights  of  the  different  grades  of  the  ministry,  as 
affected  by  slaveholding,  so  that  all  discordant  views  and 
discrepancies  in  administration  might,  if  possible,  be' conclu- 
sively adjusted  and  settled,  by  authority  of  the  General  Con- 
ference; and  the  committee  had  this  specific  object  in  view  in 
making  their  elaborate  report.  The  report  "was  adopted  with 
great  unanimity, — in  fact,  without  a  negative  vote  in  the  body. 
This  report  was  looked  to  as  settling  the  difficulties  it  was 
intended  to  remove,  and  Avas  fully  relied  upon  by  the  South, 
as  securing  all  they  desired  in  the  premises."  {Methodism  and 
Slavc7-y,  p.  41 .)  This  A'ery  explicit  explanation  leaA'es  no  room 
for  mistaking  the  origin  and  object  of  the  report  and  resolution; 
and  certainly,  so  far  as  a  declaratory  act  of  the  General 
Conference  can  go,  must  be  conclusiA^e  in  the  premises. 

This  declaratory  laAv  of  the  Church — for  such  it  clearly  is — • 
defining  more  fully  than  any  other  enactment,  the  exact  rights 
and  responsibilities  of  ministers  with  regard  to  slavery,  is 
placed  in  a  still  clearer  light,  by  a  fcAV  brief  extracts  Avhich 
Ave  take  from  the  Report  itself,  and  here  insert: — 

"As  emancipation,  under  such  cii'cumstances,  (that  is,  in 
States  Avhere  it  is  not  practicable,  so  as  to  secure  the  enjoyment 
of  liberty  to  the  freed  slave)  is  not  a  requirement  of  Discipline,  it 
cannot  be  made  a  condition  of  eligibility  to  ofiice."  Again, 
the  Conference  in  the  Report  says,  "an  appeal  to  the  policy 
and  practice  of  the  Church,  for  fifty  years  past,  Avill  shoAv  in- 
contestibly,  that  AAdiateAxr  may  haA^e  been  the  convictions  of 
the  Church,  with  regard  to  this  great  evil,  the  nature  and  ten- 
dency of  the  system  of  slavery,  it  has  ncA^er  insisted  upon 
emancipation,  in  contraA'ention  of  civil  authority,  and  it,  there- 
fore, appears  to  be  a  aa^cII  settled  and  long  established  princi- 
ple, in  the  polity  of  the  Church,  that  no  ecclesiastical  disabili- 
ties are  intended  to  ensue,  either  to  the  ministers  or  members 
of  the  Church,  in  those  States  Avhere  the  civil  authority  forbids 
emancipation."  The  General  Conference  of  1840  declares 
further,  "that  in  the  Discipline,  Ave  have  tAvo  distinct  classes 
of  legislatiA^e  provision,  in  relation  to  slaA^ery,  the  one  applying 
to  oAvners  of  slaves,  Avhere  emancipation  is  practicable,  con- 


10  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

sistently  with  the  safety  and  interest  of  masters  and  slaves, 
and  the  other,  where  it  is  impracticable,  without  endangering 
such  safety  and  these  interests,  on  the  part  of  both.  In  the 
latter  case  no  disability  attaches  on  the  ground  of  slavery,  because 
the  disability  attaching  in  other  cases,  is  here  removed  by  special 
provision  of  law."  The  same  Report  continues:  "May  not 
the  principles  and  causes,  giving  birth  to  great  moral  and  po- 
litical systems  or  institutions,  be  regarded  as  evil,  even  essen- 
tially evil,  in  every  primary  aspect  of  the  subject,  without  the 
implication  of  moral  obliquity,  on  the  part  of  those  involun- 
tarily connected  with  such  systems  and  institutions,  and  provi- 
dentially involved  in  their  operation  and  consequences?  May 
not  a  system  of  this  kind,  be  jealously  regarded,  as  in  itself 
more  or  less  inconsistent  with  natm*al  right  and  moral  rectitude, 
without  the  imputation  of  guilt,  and  derelict  motive,  in  the 
instance  of  those,  ^vho  without  any  choice  or  purpose  of  their 
own,  are  necessarily  subjected  to  its  influence  and  sway?" 

And  the  concluding  sentence  which  introduces  the  resolution 
we  have  before  inserted,  reads  thus:  "While  the  general  rule 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  relating  to  those  States  whose  laws 
admit  of  emancipation,  and  ■permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy 
freedom,  should  be  firmly  and  constantly  enforced,  the  exception 
to  the  general  rule,  appl3'ing  to  those  States,  where  emanci- 
pation as  defined  above,  is  not  practicable,  should  be  recognized 
and  protected,  with  equal  Jirmness  and  impartiality.'''' 

We  have  been  the  more  careful  to  ascertain  the  true  cha- 
racter and  bearings  of  this  action  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1840,  not  less  with  reference  to  the  case  hereafter  to  be 
noticed,  and  the  subject  generally,  than  with  regard  to  the 
case  we  have  just  been  considering.  And  when  it  is  under- 
stood that  the  primary  object  of  that  action  Avas  to  define  Math 
exactness  the  rights  and  duties  of  ministers  with  regard  to 
slavery,  and  that  the  South  relied  on  it  as  aftbrding  the  surest 
guaranty  of  protection  in  the  enjoyment  of  Disciplinary  rights, 
agreeably  to  an  interpretation  always  received  by  themselves 
as  the  only  practicable  and  consistent  one,  and  in  that  act  fully 
accredited  by  the  General  Conference,  it  is  not  at  all  astonishing 
that  the  total  disregard  of  its  authority  in  1844,  should  have 
caused  the  Southern  Delegates  to  feel  that  their  personal  se- 
curity was  essentially  weakened,  and  the  strong  supports  of 
the  union  greatly  shaken.  This  declaratory  interpretation  of 
the  law  gave  them  all  necessary  protection,  but  if  this  were 
repudiated,  they  had  none  whatever;  for,  to  reject  the  inter- 
pretation once  ofiicially  given,  was  to  deny  them  the  right  of 
the  same  interpretation,  previously  exercised  for  themselves 
without  any  authoritative  declaration  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence on  the  subject. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  11 


CHAPTER  II. 

From  the  conclusion  of  the  Harding  Case  to  the  close  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  including  the  entire  Proceedings  in  the  Case 
of  Bishop  Andrew. 

From  the  opening  of  the  Session  of  General  Conference,  ru- 
mors were  abroad  of  an  intention  to  proceed  in  some  way 
against  Bishop  Andrew,  in  consequence  of  his  connection  with 
slavery:  and  it  was  readily  foreseen  that  the  decision  in  Hard- 
ing's case  could  hardly  fail  to  exert  an  inlluence,  both  on  the 
question  of  commencing  such  action  and  on  the  final  disposi- 
tion of  the  case  if  taken  up  by  the  Conference.  For  there 
'weve  understood  to  be  material  points  of  resemblance  between 
the  two  cases,  and  if  the  statutes  of  Maryland  could  afford  no 
protection  to  a  minister,  it  was  difficult  to  see  how  the  statutes 
of  Georgia  could  protect  the  standing  of  a  Bishop,  M^ien  ad- 
judged by  the  same  tribunal.  Accordingly  after  the  Harding 
case  was  determined,  those  rumors  became  more  rife,  and  as- 
sumed a  more  confident  tone.  The  South,  on  seeing  the  Con- 
servatives and  Abolitionists  coalesce  in  this  case,  brought  them- 
selves to  believe  that  the  majority,  and  not  the  law,  exercised  the 
only  protective  or  punitive  power  of  the  Church.  The  Aboli- 
tion wing  of  the  Conference  felt  both  strengthened  and  embol- 
dened by  the  new  alliance;  while  the  "middle  men"  found 
themselves  fully  committed  by  their  action  in  sustaining  the 
Baltimore  Conferertce,  to  carry  out  consistently  the  principles 
involved  in  that  case,  in  any  other  that  might  come  before 
them.  The  aged  and  wise  saw  and  felt  the  perilousness  of  the 
position  in  which  the  Conference  was  placed:  the  North  urged 
them  further  as  the  only  means  of  saving  New  England;  the 
South  entreated  them  to  stay  their  hand  unless  they  wished  to 
consummate  the  ruin  of  the  Southern  Church,  already  but  too 
successfully  begun.  While  the  zealous  of  the  party  in  the 
ascendant — so  decisively  victorious  in  the  recent  contest — were 
arranging  plans  for  a  new  attack  and  rallying  for  a  bolder 
charge,  some  of  the  sage  and  devout  lovers  of  peace  and  unity, 
without  distinction  of  party,  gave  themselves  to  counsel,  to 
prayer  and  serious  inquiry,  hoping  to  devise  some  means  to 
avert  the  threatening  storm.  In  this  commendable  spirit  two 
eminent  and  amiable  men.  Dr.  W.  Capers  of  the  South  and 
]3r.  S.  0\ii\  of  the  North,  came  forward  in  the  General  Con- 


12  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

sference,  on  the  14th  May,  and  offered  jointly  the  following  re- 
•>rplution: — 

"In  view  of  the  distracting  agitation  Avhich  has  so  long  pre- 
vailed on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  and  especially 
the  difficulties  under  which  we  labor  in  the  present  General 
Conference,  on  account  of  the  relative  position  of  our  brethren 
North  and  South  qn  this  perplexing  question;  therefore, 

'■'■Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  from  the  North  and 
three  from  the  South,  be  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Bishops, 
and  report  within  two  days  as  to  the  possibility  of  adopting 
some  plan,-  and  what,  for  the  permanent  pacification  of  the 
Church." 

Immediately  on  the  offering  of  this  resolution,  the  middle- 
men or  Conservatives  claimed  to  be  recognized  as  a  distinct 
division  or  class  in  the  Church  and  Conference,  by  demanding 
a  representation  in  the  proposed  committee.  But  as  only  two 
points  were  named  in  the  resolution,  and  two  opposing  prin- 
ciples, and  not  three,  were  involved  in  the  previous  debates 
and  action  of  the  Conference — the  right  to  hold  slaves  accord- 
ing to  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline,  and  the  right  of  enforc- 
ing abolition,  as  in  the  case  of  Harding,  the  claim  w^as  seen  to 
be  groundless;  and  accordingly  the  committee  was  taken  from 
the  South  and  from  the  irJtole  North — Dr.  Capers,  of  S.  C,  Dr. 
Winans,  of  Mi.,  and  Mr.  Early,  of  Va.,  representing  the  former, 
and  Dr.  Olin  and  Mr.  Crandle,  of  New  England,  and  Mr. 
Hamline,  of  Ohio,  the  latter. 

The  discussion  had  pending  this  resolution,  is  very  important 
as  showing  the  true  state  of  things  to  have  been,  at  that  time, 
very  different  from  that  in  which  they  are  commonly  repre- 
sented. The  popular  presentation  of  the  matter  is,  that  all 
the  difficulty,  and  finally  the  division,  had  sole  reference  to  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  but  for  him  there  had  been  no 
serious  controversy  in  the  General  Conference.  The  remarks 
made  on  that  occasion  show,  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  promi- 
nent speakers,  the  Rubicon  was  passed  before  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew  was  taken  up  at  all.  We  shall,  therefore,  make  a 
few  quotations  from  those  speeches,  as  being  calculated  to  re- 
flect important  light  on  this  part  of  our  history.  We  quote 
the  following  remarks  from  the  speech  of  Dr.  Olin: — 

He  said  "he  had  feared  for  these  two  or  three  days  that, 
though  possibly  they  might  escape  the  disasters  that  threatened 
them,  it  was  not  probable.  He  had  seen  the  cloud  gathering, 
sjo  dark  that  it  seemed  to  him  there  was  no  hope  left  for  them 
unless  God  should  give  them  hope.  It  might  be  from  his  rela- 
tion to  both  extremities  that,  inferior  as  might  be  his  means  of 
forming  conclusions  on  other  topics,  he  had  some  advantages 
on  this.     And  from  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  feeUngs 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  13 

of  his  brethren  in  the  work  he  saw  little  ground  of  encourage- 
ment to  hope.  It  appears  to  me  (he  continued)  that  we  .stand 
committed  on  this  question  by  our  principles  and  vicM^s  of  pol- 
icy, and  neither  of  us  dare  move  a  step  from  our  position.  Let 
us  keep  away  from  the  controvers}'  until  brethren  from  oppo- 
site sides  have  come  together.  I  confess  I  turn  away  from  it 
with  sorrow,  and  a  deep  feeling  of  apprehension  that  the  diffi- 
culties that  are  upon  us  now  threaten  to  be  unmanageable.  I 
feel  it  in  my  heart,  and  never  felt  on  any  subject  as  I  do  on  this. 
I  may  take  it  for  granted  that  we  speak  as  opponents  here.  1 
have  had  no  part  in  this  controversy.  It  has  pleased  God  that  I 
should  be  far  away,  or  laid  upon  a  bed  of  sickness.  I  have  my 
opinions  and  attachments,  but  I  am  committed  b}"  no  act  of 
mine  to  either  side;  and  I  will  take  it  on  me  to  say  freely  that 
I  do  not  see  how  Northern  men  can  yield  their  ground,  or 
Southern  men  give  up  theirs.  I  do  indeed  believe,  that  if  our 
affairs  remain  in  their  present  position,  and  this  General  Con- 
ference do  not  speak  out  clearly  and  distinctly  on  the  subject, 
however  unpalatable  it  may  be,  they  could  not  go  home  under 
this  distracting  question  without  a  certainty  of  breaking  up 
their  Conferences.  I  have  been  to  eight  or  ten  of  the  A'orthern 
Conferences,  and  spoken  freely  with  men  of  every  class,  and 
firmly  believe,  that,  with  the  fewest  exceptions,  they  are 
influenced  b}^  the  most  ardent  and  the  strongest  desire  to  main- 
tain the  Discipline  of  our  Church.  Will  the  Southern  men 
believe  me  in  this — when  I  say  I  am  sincere,  and  M^ell  informed 
on  the  subject?  The  men  Mdio  stand  here  as  Abolitionists  are 
as  ardentl}'  attached  to  Methodist  Episcopacy  as  you  all.  I 
believe  it  in  my  heart.  Your  Northern  brethren,  who  seem  to 
you  to  be  arra3'ed  in  a  hostile  attitude,  have  suffered  a  great 
deal  before  they  have  taken  their  position,  and  they  come  up 
here  distressed  beyond  measure,  and  disposed,  if  they  believed 
they  could,  without  destruction  and  ruin  to  the  Church,  to  make 
concession.  It  may  be  that  both  parties  vdll  consent  to  come 
together  and  talk  over  the  matter  fairly,  and  unbosom  them- 
selves, and  speak  all  that  is  in  their  hearts;  and  as  lovers  of 
Christ  keep  out  passion  and  prejudice,  and  with  much  prayer 
call  down  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  their  deliberations,  and  feeling 
the  dire  necessity  that  oppresses  both  parties,  they  will  at  lea.st 
endeavor  to  adopt  some  plan  of  pacification,  that  if  they  go 
aM'ay  it  may  not  be  without  hope  of  meeting  again  as  brethren. 
I  look  to  this  measure  with  desire  rather  than  with  hope.  With 
regard  to  our  Southern  brethren,  and  I  hold  that  on  this  ques- 
tion at  least,  I  ma}^  speak  with  some  confidence — that  if  they 
concede  what  the  Northern  brethren  wish — if  they  concede 
that  holding  slaves  is  incompatible  with  holding  their  ministry 
— they  may  as  well  go  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  as  to  theii  own 

2 


14  HISTORY   OF  TIIE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

sunny  plains.  The  people  would  not  bear  it.  They  feel  shut 
up  to  their  principles  on  tliis  point.  They  love  the  cause,  and 
would  serve  God  in  their  work.  I  believe  there  is  not  a  man 
among  them,  that  would  not  make  every  sacrifice,  and  even 
die,  if  thereby  they  could  heal  this  division.  If  their  difficul- 
ties were  unmanageable,  let  their  spirit  be  right.  If  we  must 
part,  let  us  meet  and  pour  out  our  tears  together;  and  let  us 
not  give  up  until  we  have  tried.  I  came  into  this  Conference 
yesterday  morning  to  offer  another  resolution.  It  was  that  we 
should  suspend,  now  that  the  Sabbath  had  intervened,  and 
shed  its  calmness  and  quiet  over  our  agitated  spirits,  that  we 
should  suspend  our  duties  for  one  day,  and  devote  it  to  fasting 
and  prayer,  that  God  might  help  them,  if  he  would,  that,  if 
tiiey  had  not  union,  they  might  have  peace.  This  resolution 
partakes  of  the  same  spirit.  I  cannot  speak  on  this  subject 
without  deep  emotion.  If  we  push  our  principles  so  far  as  to 
break  up  the  connection,  this  may  be  the  last  time  we  may 
meet.     I  fear  it !     I  fear  it !     I  see  no  wa}'  of  escape." 

Dr.  Durbin  said:  "He  could  never  forget  the  scene  before 
him  this  morning.  Dr.  Olin  had  said  that  he  scarcely  indulged 
the  hope,  though  he  felt  a  strong  desire,  that  the  measure  pro- 
posed would  be  successful.  For  himself,  he  thought  he  could 
discern  light,  notwithstanding  the  darkness  that  hung  around 
the  question;  and  he  felt  not  only  a  desire,  but  a  strong  hope, 
that  we  should  yet  be  delivered  from  the  dangers  which  im- 
pended over  our  heads.  Yes,  he  clung  to  the  hope  of  the  con- 
tinued unity  of  the  Church.  Abraham,  in  great  difficulties, 
believed  in  hope  against  hope,  and  yet  most  gloriously  realized 
liis  hope,  and  became  the  father  of  many  nations.  He  said, 
he  saw  ground  for  this  hope  in  the  tenderness  of  spirit  which 
had  been  manifested  so  generally  since  the  introduction  of 
the  resolution;  and  he  felt  now,  as  he  had  felt  since  his  arrival 
in  the  city,  the  most  confident  assurance  that  brethren  of  all 
parties  would  sacrifice  every  thing,  but  their  ulterior  principles, 
for  the  continued  unity  of  the  Church." 

Mr.  Crandle,  of  New  England,  said:  "He  was  as  much  for 
conciliation  as  any  man,  and  did  not  wish  to  disturb  the  good 
leeling  that  at  present  existed  in  the  Conference.  But  there 
M  as  a  dark  shade  of  diflerence  between  the  brethren  of  the 
two  extremes.  He  supposed  he  should  be  taken  as  one  stand- 
ing on  the  extreme.  As  such  they  were  standing  on  a  vol- 
cano, which  might,  at  any  moment,  destroy  them.  But 
what  was  the  pretext  for  this  reform  movement?  Why, 
there  was  slavery  in  the  Church,  and  the  Church  tolerated  it. 
And  they  must  meet  it.  But  had  the  North  shown  any  dispo- 
sition for  division?  Not  at  all.  He  did  not  know  a  man  in  the 
North  that  desired  division.  He  hoped  that  before  they  took 
any  action  in  the  matter  they  would  understand  it." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  15 

Mr.  Early,  of  Virginia,  remarked  "on  the  spirit  pervading 
the  Conference,  and  the  spirit  that  he  trusted  would  pervade 
the  committee — the  spirit  of  prayer,  love,  and  forbearance.  He 
would  assure  the  Conference  that  the  South  were  prepared  to 
make  any  concessions  in  the  same  spirit  that  they  could,  Avith- 
out  affecting  their  essential  principles." 

Dr.  Smith,  of  Virginia,  said:  "The  South  does  not  desire 
disunion.     Come  when  it  may  it  shall  be  forced  upon  us." 

These  brief  quotations  indicate  with  sufficient  clearness,  the 
extremely  critical  posture  of  affairs  at  that  time;  and  they  also 
serve  as  an  index  to  the  fears,  convictions,  and  spirit  of  the 
parties.  And  they  show  us  that  the  South  entertained  the  most 
determined  aversion  to  separation. 

Nearly  the  last  hope  of  continued  union  now  hung  suspended 
on  the  doubtful  result  of  the  committee's  deliberations;  and 
their  report  was  a\A'aited  with  painful  solicitude.  On  the  16th, 
the  time  their  report  was  expected,  Bishop  Soule  asked  in  their 
behalf  for  longer  time;  and  on  the  18th,  he  reported  that  the 
committee  "had  been  unable  to  agree  upon  any  plan  of  com- 
promise to  reconcile  the  views  of  the  Northern  and  Southern 
Conferences." 

The  failure  of  the  attempt  at  compromise,  was,  of  course, 
the  signal  for  pushing  the  measures  so  energetically  commenced 
to  the  ulterior  point.  Accordingly  on  the  20th,  Mr.  Collins,  of 
Baltimore,  the  active  advocate  in  opposition  to  Harding,  offered 
the  following  preamble  and  resolution,  which  were  adopted: — 

"  Whe7-cas,  it  is  currentl}'  reported  and  generally  understood, 
that  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
become  connected  with  slavery;  and  whereas,  it  is  due  to  the 
General  Conference  to  have  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
matter:  therefore, 

^'Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  be  instruct- 
ed to  ascertain  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  report  the  result  of 
their  investigation  to  this  body  to-morrow  morning." 

In  obedience  to  the  instruction  given  in  this  resolution,  on 
the  21st  Dr.  Paine,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy, 
submitted  to  the  Conference  the  following  report: — - 

"The  Committee  on  Episcopacy,  to  whom  was  referred  a 
resolution,  submitted  yesterday,  instructing  them  to  inquire 
"whether  any  one  of  the  Superintendents  is  connected  with 
slavery,  presented  their  report  on  the  subject. 

"The  committee  had  ascertained,  previous  to  the  reference 
of  the  resolution,  that  Bishop  Andrew  is  connected  with  slave- 
ry, and  had  obtained  an  intervieAV  vidth  him  on  the  subject; 
and  having  requested  him  to  .state  the  whole  facts  in  the  pre- 
mises,  they  presented  a  vritten  communication  from  him  in 
relation  to  this  matter,  and  asked  leave  to  offer  it  as  his  state- 
ment and  explanation  of  the  case. 


16  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

'"To  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy: 

"  'Dear  Brethren— In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  I  submit  the  fol- 
lowing statement  of  all  the  facts  bearing  on  my  connection 
with  slavery.  Several  years  since  an  old  lady,  of  Augusta, 
Georgia,  bequeathed  to  me  a  mulatto  girl,  in  trust,  that  I 
should  take  care  of  her  until  she  should  be  19  years  of  age; 
that  with  her  consent,  I  should  then  send  her  to  Liberia;  and  that 
in  case  of  her  refusal,  I  should  keep  her,  and  make  her  as  free 
as  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Georgia  would  permit.  When  the 
time  arrived,  she  refused  to  go  to  Liberia,  and  of  her  own 
choice  remains  legally  my  slave,  although  I  derive  no  pecuniary 
advantage  from  her,  she  continuing  to  live  in  her  own  house 
on  my  lot;  and  has  been  and  still  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  go  to 
a  free  State  at  her  pleasure;  but  the  laws  of  the  State  will 
not  permit  her  emancipation,  nor  admit  such  deed  of  emanci- 
pation to  record,  and  she  refuses  to  leave  the  State.  In  her 
case,  therefore,  I  have  been  made  a  slaveholder  legally,  but 
not  with  my  own  consent. 

"  '2ndly.  About  five  years  since  the  mother  of  my  former 
wife  left  to  her  daughter,  7iot  to  me,  a  negro  boy;  and  as  my 
wife  died  without  a  \vill  more  than  two  years  since,  by  the 
laws  of  the  State  he  becomes  legally  my  property.  In  this 
case,  as  in  the  former,  emancipation  is  impracticable  in  the 
State;  but  he  shall  be  at  li])erty  to  leave  the  State  whenever 
I  shall  be  satisfied  that  he  is  prepared  to  provide  for  himself, 
or  I  can  have  sufficient  secm-ity  that  he  will  be  protected  and 
provided  for  in  the  place  to  which  he  may  go. 

"  '3rdly.  In  the  month  of  January  last  I  married  my  present 
wife,  she  being  at  the  time  possessed  of  slaves,  inherited  from 
her  former  husband's  estate,  and  belonging  to  her.  Shortly 
after  my  marriage,  being  unwilling  to  become  their  owner, 
regarding  them  as  strictly  hers,  and  the  law  not  permitting 
their  emancipation,  I  secured  them  to  her  by  a  deed  of  trust. 

"  'It  will  be  obvious  to  you,  from  the  above  statement  of 
facts,  that  I  have  neither  bought  nor  sold  a  slave;  that  in  the 
only  circumstances  in  which  I  am  legally  a  slaveholder,  eman- 
cipation is  impracticable.  As  to  the  servants  owned  by  my 
Mdfe,  I  have  no  legal  responsibility  in  the  premises,  nor  could 
my  wife  emancipate  them  did  she  desire  to  do  so.  I  have  thus 
plainly  stated  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  submit  the  state- 
ment for  the  consideration  of  the  General  Conference. 

Yours  respectfully,       (Signed)        James  O.  Andrew.' 

"All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

(Signed)  Robert  Paine, 

Chairman  of  Committee  on  Episcopacy." 

Mr.  Collins,  who  had  taken  the  lead  in  this  as  in  the  former 
prosecution,  moved  that  the  report  be  laid  on  the  table,  and 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  17 

made  the  special  order  for  the  next  day;  assigning  as  his  rea- 
son for  this  motion,  that  there  was  to  be  a  meeting  of  the 
Northern  DcIcQ;atcs  that  afternoon,  to  concert,  as  was  distinctly 
understood,  plans  of  action  in  the  prosecution.  This  announce- 
ment was  immediately  followed  by  a  call  for  a  meeting  of  the 
Souihc7ii  Delegates  on  the  same  afternoon.  It  was  thus  clearly 
seen  that  the  parties  were  organizing  and  arranging  their  plans 
and  forces — the  one  for  attack,  the  other  for  defence,  in  the 
approaching  contest. 

At  this  stage  of  the  business,  a  note  was  received  from  Dr. 
Bond — not  a  member  of  the  Conference— followed  by  a  verbal 
statement  from  him,  the  purport  of  which  v\as,  that  a  report 
was  abroad,  that  the  Northern  members  had  formed  a  plan  for 
forcing  the  South  into  secession,  and  that  he  had  been  given  as 
authority.  He  denied  all  knowledge  of  such  a  plan,  and  did 
not  believe  any  thing  of  the  kind  existed.  Dr.  Bangs  said  that 
he  too  had  heard  a  report,  that  the  purpose  had  been  avowed 
to  adopt  measures  that  would  compel  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign, 
and  the  South  to  secede,  and  then  seize  on  the  Chm'ch  property. 
He  could  not  believe  it. 

Dr.  Smith  said,  "  The  point  at  issue  was  this.  It  had  been 
stated  over  and  over  again,  in  terms  that  led  to  the  conviction 
that:  it  was  the  purpose  of  many  in  the  Conference  to  pursue 
measures  which  must  necessarily  result  in  a  division,  and  that, 
in  declaring  their  adhesion  to  these  measures,  he  would  say 
they  had  used  language  that  justly  entitled  them  to  a  dis- 
claimer." 

On  the  next  day,  (the  22d  of  May,)  Mr.  Griffith,  the  co-adjutor 
of  j\Ir.  Collins  in  the  former  case,  and  the  member  who  spoke 
.so  contemptuousl}'  of  the  laws  of  Maryland,  called  up  the 
report  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  oflered  the  following 
preamble  and  resolution: 

"  Whereas,  the  Rev.  .Tames  O.  Andrei'',  one  of  the  Bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  has  become  connected  with 
slavery,  as  communicated  in  his  statement  in  reply  to  the  inquiry 
of  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy,  which  reply  is  embodied  in 
their  report  of  yesterday;  and  whereas,  it  has  been,  from  the 
origin  of  said  Church,  a  settled  policy  and  invariable  usage  to 
elect  no  person  to  the  office  of  Bishop,  who  was  embarrassed 
Avith  this  'great  evil,'  as  under  such  circumstances  it  would  be 
impossible  for  a  Bishop  to  exercise  the  functions  and  perform 
the  duties  assigned  to  a  general  superintendent  with  acceptance 
in  that  large  portion  of  his  charge  in  which  slavery  does  not  exist; 
and  whereas,  Bishop  Andrew  himself  was  nominated  by  our 
brethren  of  the  slaveholding  States,  and  elected  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1832,  as  a  candidate  who,  though  living  aiiddst 
a  slaveholding  population,  was   nevertheless  free   from    all 

2* 


18  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

personal  connection  with  slavery;  and  whereas,  this  is  of  all 
periods  in  our  history  as  a  Church,  the  one  least  favorable  to 
such  an  innovation  upon  the  practice  and  usage  of  Methodism, 
as  to  confide  a  part  of  the  itinerant  general  superintendency  to 
a  slaveholder;  therefore, 

^'■Resolved,  That  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew  be  and  he  is 
hereby  affectionately  requested  to  resign  his  ofiice  as  one  of  the 
Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

Mr.  Griffith  made  a  speech  in  support  of  his  resolution,  in 
which  are  found  some  doctrines  not  commonly  heard  on  the 
floor  of  the  General  Conference,  and  certainly  until  then  never 
recognized  as  orthodox.  A  Bishop  he  declared  to  be  simply 
an  oificer  of  the  General  Conference — not  of  the  Church  at 
large — ^and  his  election  was  not  for  life  or  good  behavior,  but 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  General  Conference.  The  following 
are  a  iew  of  his  remarks  on  that  occasion: — 

"  A  Bishop  among  us  is  therefore  only  an  officer  of  the  General 
Conference,  created  for  sjwcial  purposes,  and  for  no  other  than  the 
purposes  specified.  If  we  look  at  the  origin  of  its  introduction, 
we  shall  clearly  perceive  this  to  be  the  case.  The  venerable 
John  Wesley  ^^iIo  was  never  able  to  disabuse  his  own  gigantic 
mind  of  his  educational  prejudices,  perhaps  to  the  day  of  his 
death,  thought  to  serve  the  American  Churches  with  a  high 
officer  in  virtue  of  his  own  appointment.  What  said  the  ven- 
erable Asbury — that  man  of  God  to  whom  Methodism  on  this 
continent,  is  more  deeply  indebted  than  to  any  other  man  who 
has  ever  lived,  or  perhaps  ever  will  live?  He  declined  to 
receive  that  office  by  the  appointment  of  John  Wesley.  He 
refused  to  accept  it  unless  the  General  Conference,  then  in 
session  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  in  1784 — the  Christmas  Con- 
ferences-should elect  him.  It  is  matter  of  history  which  no 
man  can  call  in  question.  He  was  elected  by  the  General 
Conference,  and  constituted  the  highest  officer — the  executive 
officer  of  the  General  Conference." 

Again,  he  said,  "  They  never  intended,  we  say,  to  constitute 
him  [the  Bishoji]  an  officer  for  life;  but  they  reserved  to  them- 
selves as  Annual  Conferences  power  even  to  change  every 
feature  of  the  system  of  government — to  change  every  thing 
jiertaining  to  the  character  of  the  Church,  save  the  doctrines. 
That  alone  is  absolutely  prohibited.  What  are  we  here  con- 
sulting about?  What  are  we  here  proposing  to  accomplish  and 
efieet?  Is  it,  sir,  to  try  a  Bishop  on  an  impeachment  for  immoral 
conduct?  No,  sir.  We  are  here  concerned  exclusively  with  an 
officer  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  question  comes  up 
whether  this  General  Conference,  to  Avhom  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences have  given  full  power,  not  only  to  perpetuate  their  own  ex- 
istence, but  to  make  all  rules  and  regulations  for  the  govcrnmeui; 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH,  19 

of  the  Church,  and  to  supervise  and  cany  on  the  great  object 
of  the  General  Association  for  spreading  Scriptural  truth  and 
holiness  through  these  lands;  whether  the  General  Conference, 
constituted  under  such  circumstances,  has  power  to  regulate 
her  own  officers — that's  the  question;  and  whether,  when  once 
she  selects  an  officer,  no  change  in  his  condition,  no  change  in 
his  situation,  no  embarrassment  with  which  he  may  choose  to 
involve  himself,  can  be  touched.  No,  sir;  they  have  full 
authority  to  regulate  their  own  officers,  to  provide  for  any 
exigency  which  may  operate  as  a  barrier  in  the  way  of  the 
accomplishment  of  the  objects  and  pm'poses  for  which  the 
officers  M'ere  chosen."* 

Mr.  Griffith  chiefly  asserted  the  7-ight  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  depose  a  Bishop  by  this  indirect  proceeding,  upon  the 
ground  that  he  was  their  oflicer,  the  creature  of  their  power, 
created  to  do  and  sufl'er  their  M'ill.  After  Bishop  Soule  had 
delivered  a  very  impressive  address,  admonishing  the  Confer- 
ence to  moderation  and  gentleness,  Mr.  Sandford  spoke  in  sup- 
port of  the  resolution,  advocating  it  on  the  ground  of  expediency 
alone,  and  basing  that  expediency  alone  on  the  consequences 
which  he  said  must  result  from  a  failure  to  deal  with  Bishop 
Andrew  for  his  connection  with  slavery.  "In  the  majority 
of  the  Conferences  that  compose  this  vast  body,"  said  he,  "if 
something  be  not  done  to  remove  the  evil  connected  with  the 
superintendcncy  of  Bishop  Andrew  out  of  the  way,  we  cannot 
possibly  avoid  convulsions,  and  the  loss  of  very  large  numbers  of 
om-  members,  and  give  opportunity  to  our  enemies  to  exert  a 
destructive  influence  within  the  ranks  of  our  own  community. 
This  is  clear  and  certain,  and  does  not  admit  of  a  single  doubt." 

•Novel  as  were  Mr.  Griffi'Ji's  doctrines  to  most  of  his  hearers — and  unfortunately 
infectious  as  novel  with  the  majority — they  were  not  new  to  himself.  More  than 
twenty  years  beiore  that  period,  lie  had  resolutely  arraved  himself,  with  what 
wa3  then  called  the  Radical  Party,  lu  opposition  to  the  power  of  the  Bishops  as  exer- 
cised according  to  the  Discipline  in  the  appointment  of  presidin<r  elders.  And 
in  a  pamphlet  published  by  him  (and  three  others)  against  Bishops  McKendree 
and  Soule  on  this  subject,  he  uses  nearly  the  same  language  quoted  from  his 
ej)eech,  in  adverting  to  the  same  circumstance  with  reference  to  Bisliop  Asbury. 
He  there  says,  "  A  scrupulous  and  precise  adherence  to  the  nunutiip  of  the  present 
mode  of  appointing  presiding  elders,  is  so  far  from  being  essential  to  Methodism, 
that  in  its  first  and  purest  days,  there  were  no  presiding  elders,  and  to  this  day 
there  are  none  in  our  sister  connection  in  Europe  :  and  we  believe  it  is  a  fact,  that 
Mr.  Asbury  himself,  when  ap[)ointed  by  Mr.  Wesley  a  general  superintendent,  or 
a  general  prresidlng  e/r/er,  refused  to  serve  in  that  office  until  he  was  elected  by  the 
free  suffrages  of  his  brethren  in  Conference."  In  his  distrust  and  suspicion  of 
the  Episcopacy,  Mr.  Griffith's  mind  seems  to  have  undergone  little  change,  or 
none,  since  he  wrote,  in  Julv,  18'24,  to  warn  the  church  against  Episcopal  prero- 
gative, as  exercised  by  Bishop  McKendree.  He  then  said,  "Remember  the  tena- 
cious grasp  with  wiiich  power  is  held,  when  once  acquired.  Its  march  is  ever 
onward,  and  its  tremendous  tendency  is  to  accumulation."  But  on  another 
point  he  seems  to  have  varied  .a  little  since  1824.  He  then  said  tiiat  a  man  was 
not  a  Bishop  who  had  been  elected  to  the  episcopal  office  bv  the  General  Confer- 
ence, because  he  was  not  ordaiiied,  but  now  tells  us  that  episcopal  authority  is  "  not 
at  all"  derived  from  episcopal  ordination. 


20  HISTORY   OF   THE   ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

Dr.  Winans  replied,  showing  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  pro- 
tected by  the  Law  of  the  Church  in  what  he  had  done, — that  he 
was  a  slaveholder  involuntarily,  &c.  The  doctrine  of  expedi- 
ency he  strongly  opposed,  by  showing  what  he  said  must  be  its 
practical  results.     On  this  subject  he  said: — 

"  But,  sir,  the  main  point  relied  upon  in  this  matter  is,  the 
expediency  of  the  course  contemplated.  Expediency!  Such 
a  state  of  things  has  been  gotten  up  in  the  North  and  in  the 
West  as  renders  it  necessary  for  Bishop  Andrew  to  retii-e 
from  the  office  of  the  superintendency,  if  we  would  preserve 
the  union  of  the  Church.  Sir,  I  will  meet  this  by  another 
argument  on  expediency.  By  the  vote  contemplated  by  this 
body,  an4  solicited  by  this  resolution,  you  will  render  it  expedi- 
ent; nay,  more,  you  render  it  indispensable;  nay,  more,  you 
render  it  uncontrollahly  necessary  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
Church — and  permit  me  to  add,  a  portion  always  conformed 
in  their  views  and  practices  to  the  Discipline  of  the  Church — I 
say  that  by  this  vote  j'ou  render  it  indispensably,  aye,  uncon- 
trollably necessary,  that  that  portion  of  the  Church  should 

.     I  dread  to  pronounce  the  word,  but  you  understand 

me.  Yes,  sir,  you  create  an  uncontrollable  necessity  that  there 
should  be  a  disconnection  of  that  large  portion  of  the  Chm"ch 
from  your  body.  It  is  not  because  there  are  prejudices  waked 
up  by  unceasing  agitation  year  after  year,  in  opposition  to  the 
spirit  and  language  of  the  Discipline;  but  it  arises  out  of  the 
established  laws  of  society,  from  a  state  of  things  that  is  under 
the  control  of  political  and  civil  government,  which  no  minister 
of  the  gospel  can  control  or  influence  in  the  smallest  degree. 
If  you  pass  this  action  in  the  mildest  form  in  which  you  can 
approach  the  Bishop,  you  Avill  throw  every  minister  in  the 
South  hors  du  combat;  you  will  cut  us  off'  from  all  connection  with 
masters  and  servants,  and  will  leave  us  no  option — God  is  my 
witness  that  I  speak  with  all  sincerity  of  purpose  toward  you — 
but  to  be  disconnected  with  your  body.  If  such  necessity  exists 
on  your  part  to  drive  this  man  from  his  office,  we  re-assert  that 
this  must  be  the  result  of  your  action  in  the  matter.  We  have 
no  will,  no  choice  in  this  thing.  It  comes  upon  us  as  destiny; 
it  comes  with  overwhelming  force,  and  all  v^e  can  do  is  to 
submit  to  it.  Let  this  then  pass  before  you,  and  then  give  such 
weight  as  you  think  fitting  to  the  argument  for  expediency 
embraced  in  the  preamble  to  this  resolution,  and  let  that  deter- 
mine your  vote  in  this  matter.  There  may  come  a  time  when 
your  hearts  will  bleed  at  the  recollection  of  having  cut  off'from 
your  body — for  we  will  never  go  voluntarily — as  firm,  and  good 
friends,  and  as  honest  in  our  attachment  to  Discipline,  as  any 
other  portion  of  the  Church." 

Here  we  cannot  fail  to  remark,  that  at  the  very  commence- 


METH0DI3T    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  21 

ment  of  this  debate  it  was  assumed  by  Northern  speakers  that 
unless  the  Conference  proceeded  against  Bishop  Andrew,  vast 
numbers,  and  whole  Conferences  would  abandon  the  Church 
in  the  North,  and  by  Southern  speakers  as  positively  assumed, 
tliat  if  they  did  so  proceed,  the  South  would  be  inevitably  com- 
pelled to  separate. 

Mr.  Bowen,  of  Oneida  Conference,  followed,  strongly  vindi- 
cating expediency  as  a  proper  rule  of  action  in  the  case,  even 
though  the  Bishop's  connection  might  be  throughout  entirely 
involuntary.  He  alluded  to  division  and  secession,  which  he 
deprecated,  but  still  thought  it  a  less  evil  than  schism,  or  division 
and  contention  in  the  Church. 

Dr.  Pierce,  of  Georgia,  spoke  with  great  energy  against  the 
doctrine  of  expediency,  as  productive  of  endless  mischiefs,  and 
if  practiced  on  in  this  case,  of  great  injmy,  if  not  ruin  to  the 
South.  With  the  majority  it  was  highly  expedient  to  do  what 
it  was  ruinous  on  the  part  of  the  minority  to  suffer.  He  closed 
his  remarks  by  saying: — • 

"  Finally,  I  say,  jiass  this  resolution,  and  the  whole  of  the 
Southern  States  are  hurled  into  confusion  at  once,  and  the 
brother  that  would  lie  down  to  be  trampled  upon  by  such  an 
act  of  this  bodj%  would  be  regarded  as  unworthy  the  office  he 
held,  and  un worth}'  to  preach  the  gospel  of  Jesus.  I  am  against 
the  resolution,  and  am  glad  to  make  it  known  that  I  am  against 
it  on  principles  pure  as  those  that  kindle  the  glory  of  high 
heaven — not  because  I  am  a  pro-slavery  man,  but  because  God 
did  not  call  me  to  legislate  on  these  matters." 

Mr.  J.  C.  Berryman  spoke  to  the  effect  that  he  should  vote  with 
his  eye  on  the  Discipline,  and  go  only  as  far  as  he  had  law.  The 
preamble  and  resolution  he  thought  not  authorized  by  the 
Discipline,  and  should  therefore  oppose  their  passage. 

Mr.  Coleman  said,  "  Southern  brethren  knew  little  of  the 
labors  of  the  Northern  men  to  secm^e  their  comfort  and  safety. 
Give  them  a  slaveholding  Bishop,  and  they  make  the  whole 
North  an  arena  of  gunpowder,  and  the  Bishop  a.  Jire-brajid  in 
the  midst.^' 

Dr.  Smith  questioned  the  fact  of  Northern  men  laboring  for 
the  good  of  tlie  South,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Coleman,  against  abo- 
litionism. 

Mr.  Stringfield  opposed  the  resolution  on  two  grounds;  first, 
because  it  asked  the  Bishop  to  degrade  himself,  whereas,  if  he 
had  offended  they  ought  to  define  the  crime  and  inflict  the 
penalty.  Here  they  proposed  to  award  that  the  Bishop  ought 
to  be  deposed,  and  then  make  him  inflict  the  penalty  by 
resigning.  Secondly,  since  expediency  was  the  order  of  the 
day,  he  opposed  the  measure  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  It 
was  highly  inexpedient  for  him  to  resign;  for  if  they  shuffled 


22  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

him  out  they  must  put  some  one  in  his  place;  that  one  of  course 
would  not  be  from  the  South,  and  the  Northerner  they  might 
put  into  the  place  made  vacant  by  ejecting  Bishop  Andrew, 
would  be  as  unacceptable  at  the  South,  as  Bishop  Andrew  could 
be  at  the  North. 

Mr.  Crowder,  of  Virginia,  again  met  the  expediency  dioctvme, 
and  labored  to  show  that  this  expediency  did  not  concern  Chris- 
tian character,  or  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  the  Discip- 
line; for  in  these  the  Bishop  was  blameless,  by  the  showing  of 
those  who  advocated  the  resolution;  but  it  was  a  state,  a  temper 
of  the  public  mind  in  the  North,  superinduced  by  the  spirit  of 
abolitionism,  which  must  needs  condemn  a  man  who  is  justified 
by  the  law  of  om'  common  Christianity  and  the  law  of  the 
Discipline. 

Mr.  Spencer,  of  Pittsburgh  Conference,  addressed  the  Confer- 
ence. The  most  remarkable  points  in  his  speech  are  these. 
He  contended  that  to  punish  Bishop  Andrew  for  an  act  not 
against  law  at  the  time  it  occurred,  was  not  in  the  nature  of 
ex  post  facto  action,  because  the  proceeding  was  Oi,  present  action 
to  counteract  the  effects  of  past  conduct  not  covered  by  the 
law.  [Upon  this  construction  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  the 
possibility  of  ex  post  facto  action  under  any  circumstances.] 
Another  of  his  points  is  the  doctrine  of  expediency  again, 
which  he  states  in  the  following  strong  terms: — 

"  But,  sir,  much  is  said  of  expediency.  Well,  let  us  look  at 
expediency.  It  is  alleged  that  it  would  be  a  dreadful  thing  to 
pass  the  resolution  before  us,  as  a  matter  of  expediency.  This 
is  a  grave  subject.  But  is  not  expediency  at  the  foundation  of 
many  grave  and  important  subjects?  Mr.  President,  ho^v  did 
you  and  your  colleagues  get  into  the  episcopal  office?  Expe- 
diency put  you  there,  expediency  keeps  you  there,  and  when 
expediency  requires  it  you  shall  be  removed  from  your  seats — • 
yes,  every  one  of  you.  Expediency  is  the  foundation  of  our 
episcopacy.     Nay  more,  it  is  the  very  basis  of  Methodism." 

He  remarks  fiu-ther,  that  if  Bishop  Andrew's  "  ministerial 
and  moral  character  were  as  immacidatc  as  an  angel  in  heaven,  as 
a  slaveholder  he  is  utterly  unqualified  to  discharge  the  functions 
of  the  episcopal  office  in  the  greater  part  of  our  work;  and 
ought  therefore  to  resign  or  be  deposed." 

On  the  23rd,  Dr.  Bangs  took  the  floor.  He  insisted  that 
slavery  in  the  episcopacy  was  contrary  to  Methodist  usage,  as 
stated  in  the  preamble,  because  no  Bishop  of  the  Church  had 
heretofore  held  slaves.  He  also  admitted  that  Bishop  Andrew's 
connection  with  slavery  was  "  against  his  will,"  in  the  first  and 
second  instances  named  by  the  Bishop  in  his  communication 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy,  and  intimated  that  for 
these  he  ought  not  to  be  censm-ed;  "But,"  said  1)y.  B.,  "will 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  23 

any  one  avow  that  he  was  not  a  free  agent  when  he  connected 
himself  with  this  k\dy?  No  one  will  avow  that.  He  there- 
fore acted  inipriidcnthi.'"* 

After  some  personal  conversation  of  an  explanatory  charac- 
ter, in  which  Dr.  Bangs,  Dr.  Capers,  Mr.  Davis,  and  Mr.  Pick- 
ering were  concerned,  the  following  M^as  offered  as  a  substitute 
for  the  preamble  and  resolution  before  the  Conference: — 

''Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing 
any  thing  calculated  to  destroy  our  intinerant  general  super- 
intendency;  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has  become  con- 
nected with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act 
having  drawn  after  it  circumstances  which  in  the  estimation 
of  the  General  Conference  will  greatly  embarrass  the  exerci.se 
of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  superintendent,  if  not  in 
some  places  entirely  prevent  it;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference 
that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this 
impediment  remains.  [Signed]  J.  B.  Finley, 

J.  M.  Trimble." 

Mr.  Finley  very  briefly  stated  his  reasons  for  offering  the 
substitute.  He  thought  it  would  meet  the  case  better  than  the 
original  resolution;  it  would  not  depose  Bishop  Andrew,  but 
leave  him  still  a  Bishop,  with  only  a  wish  of  Conference 
expressed  that  he  should  cease  to  exercise  the  functions  of  his 
office  while  the  present  incumbrance  remained.  He  did  not 
wish  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign,  &c. 

Dr.  Olin,  of  New  York  Conference,  spoke  in  favor  of  the  sub- 
stitute as  preferable  to  the  original  resolution.  He  said  "  he 
could  not  affirm  directly,  or  by  implication,  that  the  Discipline 
Ls  averse  to  the  election  of  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  Bishop," 
and  he  thought  this  idea  was  conveyed  in  the  preamble,  when 
it  ^vas  affirmed  that  the  holding  of  slaves  by  a  Bishop,  is  con- 
tz'ary  to  the  settled  "policy  and  usage"  of  the  Church.  Usci^e 
conveyed  in  some  sense  the  idea  of  common  law,  but  we  had 
no  law  against  a  Bishop  holding  slaves.  The  mere  fact  that 
non-slaveholding  candidates  had  received  a  majority  of  votes, 
did  not  amount  to  usage  in  any  binding  or  authoritative  sense. 
The  office  of  President  of  the  United  States  had  been  fflled 
forty-three  years  by  slaveholders,  and  but  twelve  by  Northern 

*  Dr.  Bangs  was  not  alone  in  fixing  Bishop  Andrew's  ofTence  in  the  matter  of 
his  marriage.  Mr.  Spencer,  from  whose  speech  we  have  just  quoted,  alluded  to  the 
subject  in  no  very  liberal  spirit,  or  dignified  language,  iiTquiring  in  a  vein  of 
scorching  irony,  whether  it  was  to  be  supposed  that  tlie  Bishop  liad  fallen  so 
desperately  in  love  that  he  was  obliged  to  marry — whether  a  Bisliop  "old  enough 
to  be  a  grandfather  had  fallen  into  a  chicken  jit,''''  &c.  It  is  evident,  if  he  mar- 
ried at  all,  he  must  either  be  governed  in  a  selection  by  his  own  judgment  and 
aflectiona,  or  he  must  submit  his  judgment,  tasLe,  and  attachments  to  the  control 
of  his  Northern  brethren,  and  like  an  Eastern  monarch,  wod  by  proxy,  and  from 
motives  of  interest  and  popularity. 


24  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

Statesmen,  but  this  would  not  authorize  the  assertion  that  "  the 
settled  policy  and  usage  of  the  government  was  to  elect  slave- 
holding  Presidents."  To  give  some  idea  of  the  general  charac- 
ter of  Dr.  Olin's  remarks,  we  insert  the  following  extracts  from 
his  speech,  though  not  in  exact  consecutive  order: — 

"I  believe  we  are  all  prepared  to  recognize  the  right  of 
Southern  brethren  to  hold  slaves  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Discipline.  We  shall  acknowledge  and  guaranty  the  entire 
of  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  all  parties  in  the  Church. 
1  here  declare,  that  if  a  remedy  should  be  proposed  that  would 
trench  on  the  constitutional  claims  of  Southern  ministers,  I 
would  not,  to  save  the  Church  from  any  possible  calamity, 
violate  this  great  charter  of  our  rights.  I  am  glad  of  the  op- 
portunity of  saying,  that  no  man,  who  is  a  Methodist,  and  de- 
serves a  place  among  us,  can  call  in  question  here  any  rights 
secured  by  om'  charter.  I  do  not  say  that  he  may  not  be  a 
very  honest,  or  a  very  pious  man,  who  doubts  the  compatibility 
of  slaveholding  on  the  conditions  of  the  Discipline,  with  the 
ministerial  office;  but  in  this  he  is  not  a  Methodist.  He  may 
be  a  very  good  man,  but  a  very  bad  Methodist;  and  if  such  a  man 
doubts  if  the  Chm"ch  will  reform,  oris  too  impatient  of  delay, 
let  him,  as  I  "would  in  his  place,  do  as  our  friends  in  New  Eng- 
land did  last  year,  go  to  some  other  Chui'ch,  or  set  up  one  for 
himself. 

"Not  only  is  holding  slaves,  on  the  conditions  and  under  the 
restrictions  of  the  Discipline,  no  disqualification  for  the  minis- 
terial office;  but  I  will  go  a  little  farther,  and  say,  that  slave- 
holding  is  not  constitutionally  a  forfeiture  of  a  man's  right,  if 
he  may  be  said  to  have  one,  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop.  The 
Church,  spread  out  through  all  the  land,  will  always  determine 
for  itself  what  are  disqualifications  and  Avhat  are  not,  and  it 
has  a  perfect  right  to  determine  whether  slaveholding,  or  abo- 
litionism, or  any  other  fact,  shall  be  taken  into  consideration  in 
its  elections. 

"These  are  my  principles.  I  have  never  doubted  with  re- 
gard to  them.  I  will  add,  that  I  can  never  give  a  vote  which 
does  violence  to  my  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  religious  aspect 
of  the  subject.  I  here  declare,  that,  if  I  ever  saw  the  graces 
of  the  Christian  ministry  displayed,  or  its  virtues  developed,  it 
has  been  among  slaveholders.  I  wish  here  to  divest  myself  of 
what,  to  some,  may  seem  an  advantage  that  does  not  belong 
to  me,  I  would  not  conceal — I  avow  that  I  was  a  slaveholder, 
and  a  minister  at  the  South,  and  I  never  dreamed  that  my 
right  to  the  ministry  was  questionable,  or  that  in  the  sight  of 
God  I  was  less  fitted  to  preach  the  gospel  on  that  account. 
And  if  the  state  of  my  health  had  not  driven  me  away  from 
that  region,  I  should  probably  have  been  a  slaveholder  to  this 


IHETHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  25 

day.  In  this  day  of  reform,  and  manifold  suggestions,  I  go 
further,  and  say,  that,  if  by  a  vote  of  this  General  Conference, 
you  might  call  in  question  the  right  of  our  Southern  brethren 
to  the  ministry,  and  make  their  claim  to  the  sacred  office  de- 
pendent on  their  giving  immediate  freedon  to  their  slaves,  I  do 
not  think  that  that  would  be  a  blessing  to  the  slaves,  or  to  the 
Church.  I  do  not  believe  the  slave  (ares  worse  for  having  a 
christian  master,  and  I  think  the  preachers  may  have  more  of 
public  confidence  on  our  present  plan.  I  know  these  opinions 
may  by  some  be  regarded  as  unsound,  and  I  make  them  not 
because  they  have  any  special  value  or  novelty,  but  because  1 
profess  to  speak  my  sentiments  freely. 

"With  regard  to  the  particular  case  before  us,  I  feel  con- 
strained to  make  one  or  two  remarks.  If  ever  there  was  a 
man  worthy  to  fill  the  episcopal  ofiice  by  his  disinterestedness, 
his  love  of  the  Church,  his  ardent,  melting  sympathy  for  all  the 
interests  of  humanity,  but  above  all,  for  his  uncompromising 
and  unreserved  advocacy  of  the  interest  of  the  slave — if  these 
are  qualifications  for  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  then  James  O, 
Andrew  is  pre-eminently  fitted  to  hold  that  ofiice.  I  know  him 
well.  He  was  the  friend  of  my  youth,  and  although  by  his 
experience  and  his  position  fitted  to  be  a  father,  yet  he  made 
me  a  brother,  and  no  man  has  more  fully  shared  my  sympathies, 
or  more  intimately  known  my  heart  for  these  twenty  years. 
His  house  has  been  my  home,  on  his  bed  have  I  lain  in  sick- 
ness, and  he,  with  his  sainted  wife  now  in  heaven,  has  been 
my  comforter  and  nur.se.  No  question  under  heaven  could 
have  presented  itself  so  painfully  oppressive  to  my  feelings  as 
the  one  now  before  us.  If  I  had  a  hundred  votes,  and  Bishop 
Andrew  were  not  pressed  by  the  difficulties  which  now  rest 
upon  him,  without  any  wrong  intention  on  his  part  I  am  sure, 
he  is  the  man  to  whom  I  would  give  them  all.  I  know  no  man 
who  has  been  so  bold  an  advocate  for  the  interest  of  the  slaves, 
and  when  I  have  been  constrained  to  refrain  from  saying  what 
perhaps  I  should  have  said,  I  have  heard  him  at  camp  meetings 
and  on  other  public  occasions  call  fearlessly  on  masters  to  see 
to  the  spiritual  and  temporal  interests  of  their  slaves,  as  a  high 
christian  duty.  Excepting  one  honored  brother,  whose  name 
will  hereafter  be  recorded  as  one  of  the  greatest  benefactoi-s 
of  the  African  race,  I  know  of  no  man  who  has  done  so  much 
for  the  slave  as  Bishop  Andrew." 

"I  know  the  difficulties  of  the  South.  I  know  the  excite- 
ment that  is  lilcely  to  prevail  among  the  people  there.  Yet 
allowing  our  worst  fears  all  to  be  realized,  the  South  M-ill  have 
this  advantage  over  us— the  Southern  Conferences  are  likely 
in  any  event  to  harmonize  among  themselves — they  will  form 
a  compact  body.     In  our  Northern  Conferences  this  will  be 

3 


26  HISTORY  OF  TUB   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

impossible  in  the  present  state  of  things.  They  cannot  brin;^ 
their  whole  people  to  act  together  on  one  common  ground;  sta- 
tions and  circuits  will  be  so  w^eakened  and  broken  as  in  many 
instances  to  be  unable  to  sustain  their  ministry.  I  speak  on 
this  point  in  accordance  with  the  conviction  of  mj^  ow^i  judg- 
ment, after  having  travelled  three  thousand  miles  through  the 
New  England  and  l^ew  York  Conferences,  that  if  some  action 
is  not  had  on  this  subject  calculated  to  hold  out  hope — to  im- 
part a  measure  of  satisfaction  to  the  people — tliere  Avill  be 
distractions  and  divisions  ruinous  to  souls,  and  fatal  to  the 
permanent  interests  of  the  Church. 

"1  feel,  sir,  that  if  this  great  difficulty  shall  result  in  separa- 
tion from  our  Southern  brethren,  we  lose  not  our  right  hand 
merely,  but  our  very  hearts'  blood.  Over  such  an  event  I 
should  not  cease  to  ])our  out  my  prayers  and  tears  as  over  a 
grievous  and  unmitigated  calamity.  It  was  in  that  part  of  our 
Zion  that  God  for  Christ's  sake  converted  my  soul.  There  I 
first  entered  on  the  christian  ministry.  From  thence  come  the 
beloved,  honored  brethren,  who  now  surround  me,  with  whom 
and  among  whom  I  have  labored,  and  sufl'ered,  and  rejoiced, 
and  seen  the  doings  of  the  right  hand  of  the  Son  of  God.  If 
the  day  shall  come  when  we  must  be  separated  by  lines  of  de- 
markation,  I  shall  yet  think  often  of  those  beyond  wdth  the 
kindest,  warmest  feelings  of  an  honest  christian  heart.  But, 
sir,  I  will  yet  trust  that  we  may  put  far  off  this  evil  day.  If 
we  can  pass  such  a  measure  as  will  shield  our  principles  from 
all  infringement — if  ^ve  can  send  forth  such  a  measure  as  will 
neither  injure  nor  justly  offend  the  South — as  shall  neither 
censure  nor  dishonor  Bishop  Andrew,  and  yet  shall  meet  the 
pi'cssing  wants  of  the  Chui'ch,  and  above  all,  if  Almighty  God 
shall  be  pleased  to  help  by  pouring  out  his  Spirit  upon  us,  we 
may  yet  avoid  the  rock  on  which  we  now  seem  but  too  likely 
to  split." 

Mr.  Drake,  of  Mississippi,  opposed  the  substitute.  He 
thought  in  spirit  and  principle,  it  was  no  better  than  the  ori- 
ginal. A  Bishop,  he  said,  holds  his  office  for  life  or  good  be- 
havior, and  he  believed  this  was  the  universal  understanding. 
"A^ow  to  say  that  we  can  deprive  a  Bishop  of  his  office,  and 
yet  not  censure  him — that  we  can  depose,  and  yet  leave  his 
episcopal  robe  unstained— is,  to  my  mind,  absurd  in  the  ex- 
treme." "According  to  their  own  showing,  they  cannot  punish 
Bishop  Andrew  without  committing  an  extra-judicial  act.  Nor 
can  tills  course  be  pursued,  and  the  union  of  the  Church  be 
preserved."  He  said  the  South  did  not  expect  to  become  se- 
ceders,  but  to  abide  by  the  Discipline,  and  even  a  majority  of 
tlie  members  had  no  i-ight  to  drive  them  from  it.  If  this  conces- 
sion were  made  to  tlie  North  it  would  not  satisfy  them.     He 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  27 

had  enquired  of  them  and  the  response  was,  that  with  this  th(>y 
"vvould  be  satisticd  at  present.  Probably  at  next  General  Con- 
ference it  would  be  necessary  to  pursue  a  similar  course  with 
Presiding  Elders.  He  concluded  by  suggesting  the  following 
as  better  suiting  the  case,  and  without  any  violation  of  the 
Discipline: 

"Whereas,  there  have  been  found  difficulties  of  a  serious 
nature  in  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ex- 
ercising a  general  su])erintendency;  therefore, 

'■'■Resolved,  That  the  General  Conference  recommend  the 
episcopacy  to  assign  to  each  Superintendent  his  sphere  of  laboi- 
for  the  next  four  years." 

This  proposition,  not  being  in  order,  was  offered  as  a  sug- 
gestion, and  no  action  was  had  on  it. 

Mr.  Slicer,  of  Baltimore,  said  he  belonged  to  the  class  called 
Conservatives,  and  would  go  for  the  substitute.  It  would  not 
quite  suit  the  extremes  North  or  South,  but  he  thought  it  would 
suit  the  case  and  the  great  body  of  the  Church  between  New 
England  and  Virginia,  and  West  to  the  Mississippi.  He  thought 
the  elected  delegates  in  the  General  Conference  had  a.  right  to 
have  a  slaveholding  Bishop,  if  they  chose  to  elect  one,  but  did 
not  think  that  they  would  have  one  until  they  did  so  choose  to 
elect  him.  "Bishop  Andrew  had  not  infracted  the  Discipline, 
but  he  had  offended  against  the  great  law  of  expedkncijP 

Mr.  Crandle,  of  New  England,  did  not  quite  approve  eitlier 
resolution,  but  thought  there  w^as  a  disposition  to  meet  the 
South  on  some  middle  ground.  He  had  intended  to  vote  for 
the  sulistitute  until  he  heard  the  speech  of  the  brother  from 
Mississippi,  (Mr.  Drake.)  He  took  exception  to  a  remark  of 
Dr.  Olid — that  the  constitidinn  granted  Southern  ministers  tlie 
right  of  holding  slaves,  without  prejudice  to  their  official  stand- 
ing. He  admitted  that  the  statute  law  of  the  Church  allowed 
this  right,  but  not  the  constitution.  (Dr.  Olin  explained  that 
this  was  in  substance  his  meaning.) 

Mr.  Cass,  of  New  Hampshire,  said:  "Mr.  President,  if  I  un- 
derstand the  subject  now  under  consideration,  it  is  this: — Is  it 
expedient  for  this  Conference  to  suspend  Bishop  Andrew  fi-om 
his  oflice  on  account  of  his  being  a  slaveholder,  until  such  X'lnw 
as  he  shall  be  free  from  this  embari'assment?  The  reason  as- 
signed why  such  action  should  be  had  is,  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  Church  are  o})posed  to  having  a  slaveholder  for  a  Bishop. 
Now,  sir,  I  hold  if  they  are  wrong,  and  the  Bishop  is  right,  no 
action  should  be  had  against  him  in  the  premises.  This,  then, 
is  the  question  to  be  settled.  Dr.  Olin  has  said  that  the  Bishop 
has  done  no  wrong;  but,  with  all  due  deference,  1  must  beg 
leave  to  dissent  from  his  opinion  in  this  matter. 

"Sir,  is  there  no  moral  wrong  in  being  a  slaveholder?     A 


28  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

portion  of  the  A^orth  believe  slaveholding  to  be  a  moral  WTon^. 
We  have  nothing  to  do  with  slavery  in  the  abstract:  but  we 
believe  that  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  these  United  States,  and  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is  morally  wrong. 

"But,  leaving  this  out  of  the  question  for  the  present,  is  there 
no  wrong  in  Bishop  Andrew  becoming  a  slaveholder,  and 
thereby  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church;  and  also  bringing 
this  dark  cloud  over  us,  and  this  trouble  upon  us,  which  has 
|>ained  our  hearts  and  detained  us  here  for  days?  when  he  has 
brought  this  evil  into  existence  by  his  voluntary  act,  with  his 
eyes  open?     Sir,  I  think  there  must  be  a  "WTong  in  this. 

"Dr.  Olin  has  said,  that  the  resolution  now  before  us  should 
be  so  modified  as  thiat  Bishop  Andrew  will  not  be  censured. 
Sir,  1  hold  there  should  be  no  privileged  order  in  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church:  if  he  has  done  w^rong,  he  ought  to  be 
censured.  As  much  as  I  respect  the  office  of  Bishop,  and  the 
men  who  fill  it,  they  are  amenable  to  justice  if  they  do  MTong 
as  much  as  I  am  in  my  humble  relation  in  the  Church;  and 
with  as  much  greater  responsibility  as  their  station  is  above 
mine.  They  are  the  very  last  men  who  should  not  be  cen- 
sured, if  in  the  wrong.  Mark  this,  sir,  whenever  there  is  a 
])rivileged  order  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  glory 
will  have  departed.     Let  this  not  be — no,  never. 

"Dr.  Olin  says,  that  slaveholding  does  not  disqualify  any 
man  for  the  ministry,  provided  he  live  in  a  slaveholding  State; 
and  that  the  constitution  of  the  Methodist  Church  sustains  him 
in  his  position,  and  those  mIio  difier  from  him  in  opinion  are 
})ad  Methodists;  and  if  they  persist  in  these  courses,  they  ought 
to  follo^v  the  example  of  those  who  have  seceded  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Sir,  by  this  one  stroke  he  has 
severed  four  Conferences  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
1  do  not,  however,  think  he  intended  to  do  it.  But  it  was  done 
with  his  zeal  to  hold  on  to  the  South,  which,  by  the  way,  he 
appears  to  have  some  sympathy,  if  not  partiality  for,  as  he 
has  been  a  slaveholder,  and  never  thought  it  was  any  thing 
against  his  ministerial  character. 

"  The  South  say,  if  Bishop  Andrew  is  suspended,  the  line  of 
division  will  be  dra\vn  between  the  North  and  South,  and  that 
wdien  they  say  this  they  speak  the  mind  of  the  whole  South. 
Sir,  how  do  they  know  this  fact?  Have  they  taken  a  vote  in 
all  their  Annual  Conferences?  or,  have  they  had  a  convention 
to  deliberate  on  this  matter? 

"  They  calculate  to  claim  that  they  are  the  Church  and  the 
North  will  be  the  seccders.  This  is  not  the  first  time  M^e  have 
heard  of  nullification,  or  that  which  is  equivalent,  (in  the 
Church  and  State,)  from  the  South;  but  the  world  stands  yet, 
and  1  believe  it  will  not  be  moved  from  its  foundations  if  the 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  29 

resolution  before  us  should  pass.  These  threats  have  then* 
meaning,  which  is  perfectly  understood  by  the  North." 

May  24th.  Mr.  G.  F.  Pierce,  of  Georgia,  spoke  against  the 
resolution,  in  an  animated  speech  of  some  length,  from  which 
we  make  the  following  extract: — 

"Sir,  there  has  been,  in  every  speech  which  has  been  made 
on  the  other  side  of  the  question,  a  false  issue  attempted. 
Whatever  may  be  affirmed  of  expediency,  and  the  disquaUfica- 
tion  of  Bishop  Andrew  for  the  othce  of  general  superintendent, 
in  view  of  circumstances  over  which  it  is  declared  brethren 
have  no  control,  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  or  disguised  that  this 
is  not  an  abstract,  but  a  practical  question,  that  it  involves  the 
constitutional  rights  and  equality  of  privileges  belonging  to 
Southern  ministers.  It  is  a  practical  question,  too,  which 
cannot  be  set  oti"  from  its  connection  with  the  past,  and  its 
bearings  on  the  future.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  a  system, 
slowly  developed  it  may  be,  j'et  obvious  in  its  designs  and 
unwearied  in  its  operation,  to  deprive  Southern  ministers  of 
their  rights,  and  to  disfranchise  the  whole  Southern  Church. 
You  cannot  take  the  question  out  of  its  relations.  It  cannot 
be  made  to  stand  as  brethren  have  tried  to  make  it  stand, 
isolated  and  alone.  If  there  had  been  no  memorials  on  your 
table,  praying  for  the  establishment  of  a  law  of  proscription— if 
there  had  not  been  declared  over  and  over  again  a  settled 
purpose,  if  not  in  unequivocal  terms,  yet  in  unequivocal  acts, 
to  work  out  the  destruction  of  this  evil,  and  free  the  episcopacy 
and  the  Church  itself  from  this  evil,  tlie  question  befoi-e  us 
would  be  ditierent  in  its  aspects,  and  the  action  of  the  South 
in  regard  to  it  might  be  modified  accordingly.  I  beg  this  Con- 
ference to  consider  this  question  in  the  light  of  its  connection 
with  the  previous  action  in  the  case  of  the  appeal  from  the 
Baltimore  Conference.  Sir,  the  preposterous  doctrine  was 
asserted  in  that  Conference  that  its  purposes  and  usages  are 
paramount  to  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the  doctrine  of  that 
Conference  has  been  aflirmed  here.  Sir,  the  action  of  this 
Conference  on  the  subject  has  brought  the  whole  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  into  a  position  of  antagonism  to  the  laws  of 
the  land.  I  consider  such  action  not  only  an  outrage  on  the 
common  justice  of  the  case,  but  decidedly  revolutionary  in  its 
movements,  and  destined  to  affect,  unless  repealed,  the  char- 
acter of  the  Conference  and  all  the  ramifications  of  the  Church. 
What  is  the  position?  The  ground  was  taken  then  and  here 
— the  Church,  the  Bible,  the  Discipline,  and  the  laws  of  the 
land  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding — that  we  have  a  right  to 
make  a  man's  membership  depend  upon  the  condition  of  his 
doing  a  thing  which,  as  a  citizen  of  the  State,  he  has  no  power 
or  right  to  do.     The  act  which  is  proposed  in  the  resolution  is 

3* 


30  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

part  and  parcel  with  the  same  affair.  When  Bishop  Andrew 
Jias  been  invited  to  resign  or  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his 
episcopal  functions,  or  is  impeached  or  deposed,  it  ought  to  be, 
and  can  be  considered  as  neither  more  nor  less  than  collateral 
in  its  designs  and  effects  with  the  action  of  the  Conference  in 
the  case  to  which  I  have  referred. 

"  This  is  a  practical  question,  make  what  disclaimers  you 
please,  or  any  amount  of  them.  The  common  sense  of  the 
country  will  consider  it  as  an  infraction  of  the  constitutional, 
or,  if  you  please,  the  disciplinary  rights  of  the  Southern  brethren, 
however  it  may  be  considered  by  those  in  the  so-styled  more 
favored  and  less  encumbered  portions  of  the  Union. 

"  But,  sir,  I  v^dll  present  one  view  of  this  question  M'hich  has 
not  been  touched  upon.  Set  off  the  South,  and  what  is  the 
consequence?  Do  you  get  rid  of  embarrassment,  discord, 
division,  strife?  No,  sir;  you  multiply  divisions.  There  will 
be  secessions  in  the  Northern  Conferences,  even  if  Bishop 
Andrew  is  deposed  or  resigns.  Prominent  men  Mali  abandon 
your  Church.  I  venture  to  predict  that  whenever  the  day  of 
division  comes — and  come  I  believe  it  will  from  the  present 
aspect  of  the  case — that  in  ten  years  from  this  day,  and  perhaps 
less,  there  will  not  be  one  shred  of  the  distinctive  peculiarities 
of  Methodism  left  within  the  Conferences  that  depart  from  us. 
The  venerable  man  who  now  presides  over  the  Northern  Con- 
ferences may  live  out  his  time  as  a  Bishop,  but  he  will  never 
have  a  successor.  Episcopacy  will  be  given  up,  the  presiding 
eldership  will  be  given  up,  the  itinerancy  will  come  to  an  end, 
and  Congregationalism  will  be  the  order  of  the  day.  The 
people  will  choose  their  own  pastors,  and  preachers  will  be 
standing  about  the  ecclesiastical  market-places,  and  when  men 
shall  ask,  'Why  stand  ye  here  all  the  day  idle?'  the  answer 
will  be,  'Because  no  man  hath  hired  us.'  [An  involuntary 
burst  of  applause  was  here  interrupted  by  the  chair,  who  said. 
That  is  wholly  inadmissible.] 

"We  have  unity  and  peace,  and  seek  it  because  of  its  effects 
on  the  connection,  and  I  believe,  to-day,  that  if  the  New  England 
Conferences  were  to  secede,  the  rest  of  us  would  have  peace. 
There  would  be  religion  enough  left  among  us  to  live  together 
as  a  band  of  Christian  brothers. 

"Sir,  I  object  to  the  substitute  for  another  reason.  I  would 
have  preferred  the  original  resolution.  The  substitute  presents 
a  most  anomalous  view  of  the  whole  subject.  Suppose  that 
view  is  adopted;  what  is  it?  What  do  you  do  with  the  Bishop? 
You  cannot  put  him  on  a  circuit  or  station:  he  is  a  Bishop  in 
duress — a  Bishop  in  prison  bounds — an  anomaly — a  fifth  wheel 
in  the  machine  of  Methodism — doomed  to  live  on  the  Book 
Concern,  while  no  provision  is  made  for  his  rendering  the 
Church  any  service,  if  this  resolution  is  adopted." 


METHODIST   EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  31 

« 

He  also  spoke  of  New  England  as  the  prime  source  of  all 
the  difficulty; — but  for  her  he  believed  the  residue  of  the  Church 
would  be  at  peace,  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  if  the  New 
England  Conferences  should  secede,  the  Church  would  be 
gainer  by  it;  and  he  Avished  they  would  do  so. 

Dr.  Longstreet,  of  Georgia,  next  addressed  the  Conference 
in  an  able  argument,  showing,  among  other  things,  that  the 
North  have  not  made  the  concessions  to  the  South  which 
she  has  claimed  to  have  done,  pointing  out  the  inconsistency 
of  the  proceedings  in  the  present  case,  &c.  He  said  they  had 
laid  down  premises  in  their  preamble,  as  the  basis  of  their 
action,  and  then  had  gone  on,  one  day  and  part  of  another, 
debating  the  subject,  without  attempting  to  give  a  single  argu- 
ment to  sustain  the  position  they  had  assumed,  and  then  before 
the  South  have  opportunity  to  discuss  the  question,  it  is  ex- 
changed for  a  new  proposition,  &c. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Peck,  of  Troy  Conference,  followed  in  reply  to  Mr. 
Pierce,  of  Georgia;  and  as  we  gave  an  extract  from  the  speech 
of  the  latter,  we  insert  the  reply  of  the  former  to  the  principal 
points  in  Mr.  Pierce's  speech: — 

"  He  [Mr.  Pierce]  says  we  have  made  a  false  issue  in  this 
discussion.  And  what  is  it?  Why  that  we  have  discussed  it 
as  an  individual  matter,  confined  in  its  application  to  Bishop 
Andrew  himself;  whereas  it  was  in  truth  a  great  practical 
question,  bearing  upon  the  whole  South.  We  admit  it,  Mr. 
President;  it  is  a  great  practical  question,  bearing  not  upon 
the  South  merely,  but  upon  the  whoh  Chru^ch.  We  utterly 
disclaim  the  limitation  of  the  question  to  any  man.  We  take 
up  the  issue  exactly  as  he  has  laid  it  down.  It  is  upon  the 
assertion  and  action  of  a  great  principle  of  immense  practical 
bearing  that  we  predicate  our  arguments.  It  is,  verily,  the 
brother  may  be  well  assured,  a  matter  of  great  practical  im- 
•portance  to  us,  and  to  the  Church,  whether  we  have  a  slave- 
holding  Bishop  or  not.  Here,  then,  I  have  no  contention  with 
him. 

"But,  Mr.  President,  the  brother  alarmed  me!  He  made 
a  declaration  which  was  to  me  utterly  surprising!  He  says  the 
great  question  of  unity  is  decided!  [Mr.  P.  explained.  "Pros- 
pectively decided."]  Prospectively  decided?  to  be  sure!  Did 
any  one  suppose  it  had  been  decided  retrospectiveh)?  Division, 
then,  in  his  mind,  is  really  inevitable!  Surely,  sir,  /  had  not 
thought  so.  And  I  am  happy  to  say  I  know  many  brethren 
North  and  South,  much  more  distinguished  for  age  and  expe- 
rience than  either  of  us,  who  do  not  think  so.  The  division  ol" 
our  excellent  Church  decided !  The  unity  of  our  common 
Methodism  destroyed!  May  Heaven  forbid  it!  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it,  sir.     The  strong  bonds  that  hold  us  together,  I  trust, 


32  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

are  not  sundered!  But,  he  says,  the  Baltimore  appeal  case 
virtually  decided  it.  I  do  not  so  understand  it.  There  were, 
it  is  true,  several  points  of  analogy  between  the  case  of  Mr. 
Harding  and  that  of  Bishop  Andrew.  But  the  action  contem- 
plated in  the  case  of  the  Bishop  is  widely  different  from  that 
had  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding.  In  that  case  we  did  nothing 
more  than  to  affirm  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference: 
and  in  that  act  say,  that  we  would  not  allow  slavery  to  be 
crowded  on  her,  after  she  had  nobly  declared  she  would  not  have  it. 
The  appellant  stood  suspended  from  his  ministerial  functions. 
But  was  an}^  such  thing  intended  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew? 
Did  the  resolution  affirm  any  such  thing?  Certainly  not.  It 
merely  proposed  that  he  should  desist  from  the  exercise  of  the 
episcopal  office  until  he  should  free  himself  from  the  embar- 
rassment of  slavery.  The  cases  then  were  widely  different. 
Brethren  were  undoubtedly  premature  in  asserting  that  the 
decision  of  the  Conference  in  the  Baltimore  appeal  case  had 
prospectively  determined  the  division  of  the  Church!  Indeed, 
the  gentleman  himself  seemed  to  have  doubts  about  it,  when 
he  came  to  consider  a  little;  for  after  he  had  progressed  in  his 
argument  so  far  as  to  consider  the  influence  of  the  proposed 
action  in  the  case  of  the  Bishop,  he  declared,  Pass  that  reso- 
lution, and  the  great  question  of  Methodist  unity  is  decided 
forever.  Indeed!  Then  it  remains  to  be  decided,  the  Baltimore 
appeal  case  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding!  I  thank  the 
brother  for  that.  My  judgment  in  the  case  cannot  be  altogether 
groundless,  since  it  derives  support  from  his  own  declarations. 
Be  assured,  sir,  I  greatly  rejoiee  in  this. 

"  But  the  brother  from  Georgia  says  this  measure  will  not 
save  us  from  secessions.  We  shall  have  secessions  in  New 
England!  We  shall  have  them  every  where!  What  can  be 
done  to  satisfy  New  England?  Sir,  as  the  name  of  New  Eng- 
land struck  my  ear  I  felt  a  thrill  of  the  most  intense  interest. 
But,  the  reverend  gentleman  proceeded,  they  are  busy  bodies 
in  other  men's  matters!  A  thorn  in  the  flesh!  A  messenger 
of  Satan  to  buffet  us!  And,  alluding  (as  I  understood  him  to 
do)  to  a  certain  movement  in  New  England,  and  certain  prin- 
ciples upon  which  that  movement  was  based,  he  called  it  the 
foul  spirit  of  the  pit!  the  Juggernaut  of  perdition!  &c.  Upon 
this  language,  Mr.  President,  I  may  not  remark!  I  must,  of 
necessity,  leave  it  without  animadversion!  But  with  the  utmost 
respect,  this  dear  brother  will  excuse  me  for  saying  I  much 
prefer  the  terms  used  by  some  of  his  highly  respected  associates. 
I  like  the  chaste  and  beautiful  language  of  the  sweet-spirited 
and  eloquent  Mr.  Crowder,  and  the  dignified  and  forcible  style 
of  the  reverend  gentleman  who  last  preceded  me.  I  must  say, 
Mr.  President,  I  deprecate  the  use  of  such  language  in  a  con- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  33 

troversy  of  such  solemn  importance — a  controversy  invested 
with  more  elements  of  moral  grandeur  than  any  which  has 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  American  people  for  half  a  cen- 
tury! I  hope  the  brother  will  not  use  it  again,  and  certainly 
not  on  the  floor  of  this  General  Conference. 

But  my  friend  from  the  Georgia  Conference  saj-s,  Let  New 
England  go!  1  wish  in  my  heart  she  would  secede!  And  joy 
go  with  her,  for  I  am  sure  she  will  leave  peace  behind  her! 
Let  New  England  go?  I  cannot  forget  this  exclamation.  It 
vibrates  in  my  soul  in  tones  of  grating  discord.  Why,  sir, 
what  is  New  England,  that  we  should  part  with  her  with  so 
little  reluctance?  J^ew  England!  The  land  of  the  pilgrims — ■ 
the  land  of  many  of  our  venerated  fathers  in  Israel— the  land 
of  Broadhead — of  Merritt — of  the  reverend  man  [pointing  to 
George  Pickering]  who  sits  by  my  side,  and  a  host  of  worthies 
whom  we  have  delighted  to  honor  as  the  bulwarks  of  Method- 
ism in  its  early  days  of  primitive  purity  and  peril.  Let  New 
England  go?  No,  sir,  we  cannot  part  so  easily  with  the  pioneer 
land  of  the  devoted  and  sainted  Jesse  Lee! 

But,  Mr.  President,  our  brethren  of  the  South  utterly  mistake 
the  truth  in  this  matter!  Why,  sir,  they  can't  get  half  way  to 
New  England  in  this  war!  They  must  wade  through  numbers 
and  forces  of  which  they  never  dreamed  !  They  must  encoun- 
ter us  in  the  centre,  whose  opposition  to  slavery  is  uncompro- 
mising. And  Baltimore!  (honor  to  her  self-sacrificing  devotion 
to  the  cause  of  humanity)  will  be  a  formidable  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  their  advance.  But  if  they  ever  should  subdue  us,  and 
reach  the  land  of  the  pilgrims,  rest  assured,  sir,  they  would  find 
there  a  wall  of  brass  which  would  remain  forever  impregnable 
to  the  assaults  of  the  slave  power!  We  are  happy  that  New 
England  is  with  us  to  a  man  in  this  fearful  conflict — that  the 
united  West,  and  North,  and  East,  form  an  insuperable  barrier 
to  the  advance  of  slavery!  O,  sir,  I  fear  me  much  our  brethren 
at  the  South  are  deceiving  themselves  in  this  matter.  This 
has  never  been  a  question  of  principle  between  us  and  New 
England.  We  have  alwajs  been  agreed  in  fundamental  anti- 
slavery  sentiments,  and  I  am  the  more  careful  to  allude  to  this, 
because,  so  far  as  I  remember,  it  is  a  distinction  that  has  not 
been  made  in  this  discussion.  It  has  been  purely  a  question  of 
measures  between  us.  In  this,  it  is  true,  we  have  differed,  but 
in  opposition  of  principle  to  slavery.  North,  East  and  West,  we 
always  have  been,  and  I  trust  shall  ever  remain,  inseparably 
united.  We  resist,  as  one  man,  the  advancement  of  slavery, 
wdiich,  not  content  to  be  confined  within  its  own  geographical 
limits,  threatens  to  roll  its  dai'k  waves  over  the  North.  //  claims 
the  right  to  give  us  a  slavcholcdng  jjastor!  A  slavcholding  Bishop! 
Do  not  then  be  surprised  that  we  are  so  perfectly  united  in 


34  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

asking  to  be  set  back  exactly  where  we  were  a  few  months  ago. 
(),  sh',  if  our  brethren  could  roll  the  wheels  of  time  back  to 
where  they  were  last  November,  when  we  had,  comparatively, 
no  difficulties  to  encounter!  But  this  they  cannot  do.  What 
less,  however,  can  they  expect  us  to  ask,  than  that  they  should 
do  what  is  equivalent  to  it,  give  us  our  Bishop  without  the 
slaves?" 

Saturday,  May  25th.  After  Mr.  Peck  concluded  the  very 
extended  speech  commenced  the  preceding  day, 

Mr.  A.  L.  P.  Green,  of  Tennessee,  addressed  the  Conference  in 
opposition  to  the  resolution.  He  thought  the  question  nar- 
ro"wed  itself  to  this:  has  the  General  Conference,  the  constitu- 
tion and  Discipline  being  judge,  a  right  to  depose  a  Bishop  for 
having  become  connected  with  slavery?  He  thought  Dr. 
Bangs  and  others,  on  the  other  side,  were  quite  wrong  in  their 
position,  that  a  Bishop  is  simply  an  officer  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, placed  precisely  on  the  same  ground,  as  regards  his 
tenure  of  office,  with  a  Book  Agent,  an  Editor  of  a  newspaper, 
or  a  Conference  Secretary.  This  was  strange  doctrine  to  him. 
An  officer  of  the  General  Conference  was  elected  for  a  definite 
period,  and  unless  re-elected,  must  then  necessarily  go  out  of 
office.  He  w^as  therefore  not  degraded  by  being  removed  or 
superceded  at  the  end  of  the  term  for  which  he  was  elected. 
That  or  re-election  must  come  of  course.  Not  so  a  Bishop; — 
When  once  elected  and  consecrated,  he  is  a  Bishop  for  life, 
unless  he  cease  to  travel,  or  should  misbehave.  To  put  him 
out  of  othce  then  at  any  time  during  life,  unless  in  one  of  these 
contingencies,  is  to  degrade  him.  It  is  like  putting  an  Agent 
or  an  Editor  out  of  office  in  the  midst  of  the  term  for  which  he 
was  elected.  A  Bishop,  during  life,  could  only  get  out  of 
office  by  resigning  or  being  deposed.  Was  this  true  of  other 
officers?  Or  did  a  Book  Agent  have  to  declare  solemnly  that 
he  believed  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  take  on  him 
the  office  and  work  of  a  Book  Agent?  Was  an  Editor  set 
apart  for  his  work  by  holy  rites  of  ordination  and  solemn  im- 
position of  hands? 

It  was  said  that  the  proposed  course  was  mild  toward  Bishop 
Andrew.  The  pill  might  be  sweetened  to  render  it  palatable, 
but  disguise  it  as  you  will,  it  has  in  it,  if  taken,  episcopal  death. 

As  to  expediency,  so  much  relied  on  in  this  case,  he  thought 
while  we  have  a  Discipline  designed  to  guide  and  govern  our  ac- 
tion and  administration,  it  was  expedient  that  we  should  respect 
that  Discipline,  no  law  of  wdiich  was  charged  to  have  been  vio- 
lated by  Bishop  Andrew.  With  Paul  some  things  were  lawful 
that  were  not  expedient;  but  with  him  it  was  never  expedient  to  do 
what  was  unlairfid,  as  is  proposed  in  this  case.  The  arguments 
used  to  show  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to  act  in 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  35 

the  abs^ence  of  law,  he  thought  not  pertinent.  Dr.  Bangs  sup- 
posed that  if  Bishop  Andrew  had  married  a  negro  ^voman, 
though  there  was  no  law  of  the  Discipline  against  it,  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  would  have  power  to  depose  him  for  the  act; 
but  if  the  law  of  the  Discipline  had  provided  that  any  minister 
might  do  that  very  act,  under  given  circumstances,  and  then 
Bishop  Andrew  had  done  the  act  under  these  precise  circum- 
stances, the  General  Conference  would  have  had  no  right  or 
power  to  contravene  their  own  law  by  a  plea  of  cxpcdicncij. 

It  has  been  said  and  often  repeated  that  the  sense  of  the 
Church  had  ever  been  against  a  slaveholding  Bishop — that  we 
had  never  had  one,  (fee.  He  supposed  that  next  to  Bishop 
Asbury,  Bishop  McKendree  was  entitled  to  rank  highest  among 
the  apostles  of  American  Methodism,  and  yet  Bishop  McKen- 
dree had  determined  to  buy  a  black  boy  to  wait  on  him,  and 
was  only  prevented  by  the  dissuasion  of  himself  and  another 
brother. 

When  he  heard  brethren  on  all  sides  lauding  the  piety  and 
talents  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  declaring  he  had  transgressed 
iiolaAV,  but  still  demanding  him  as  a  sacrifice,  it  seemed  to  be 
saying,  "  Here  take  him  and  crucify  him,  for  I  find  iw  fault  in 
him." 

Dr.  Bangs  rose  to  correct  Mr.  Green.  He  did  not  make  the 
comparison  alluded  to  [comparing  Bishop  Andrew  to  an  Agent, 
&c.]  A  Bishop  was  a  Bishop,  and  not  an  Agent  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  But  as  the  General  Conference  created  him, 
he  thought  they  had  power  to  depose  or  suspend  him  for  just 
cause. 

Mr.  Green  said  he  might  be  in  a  mistake  as  to  the  individual, 
but  he  knew  he  was  not  as  to  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  had 
been  advanced  and  advocated  by  that  party  [See  Mr.  Griffith's 
speech.] 

Monday,  May  27th.  Mr.  Hamline,  of  Ohio,  (now  Bishop,) 
took  the  floor,  in  a  speech  of  considerable  length,  and  quite 
original  in  many  of  its  views.  He  contended  that  the  General 
Conference  had  the  right  to  remove  a  Bishop  from  his  oflice 
even  without  assigning  any  cause  for  the  act,  upon  the  same 
principle  that  a  Bishop  can  remove  a  Presiding  Elder,  an  Elder 
remove  a  circuit  or  stationed  preacher,  a  preacher  a  class- 
leader,  or  a  quarterly  conference  refuse  to  renew  the  license  of 
an  exhorter  or  local  preacher,  on  the  ground  of  unacceptable- 
ness.  To  show  this  power  more  fully,  he  said  the  General 
Conference  is  supreme — "  Its  supremacy  is  uni^wrsdl.  It  has 
legis'lative,  judicial,  and  executive  supremacy."  These  proposi- 
tions he  elaborated  at  length.  He  contended  that  the  power 
of  the  General  Conference  "  to  make  ?-u.les  and  regulations''^  was 
very  comprehensive.      "To  make  rules"  comprehended  the 


86  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

"  legislative"  power;  "  to  make  regulations"  is  executive  or  ad- 
ministrative. To  appoint  a  preacher  his  work,  or  remove  him, 
is  a  regulation.  To  appoint  a  Bishop  to  do  this  for  the  General 
Conference  is  a  regulation.  "  To  recall  that  Bishop  to  his  former 
station  is  a  regulation.''''  Whatever  powers  the  General  Con- 
ference possesses  it  can  confer,  and  what  it  can  confer  it  can 
^vithhold.  "And  what  it  can  confer  or  withhold,  it  can  irsume 
at  pleasure."  With  regard  to  the  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference to  act  in  this  case  without  law,  he  says: — 

''  It  has  been  urged  privately,  by  very  many,  that  we  have 
no  authority  to  displace  a  Bishop,  except  for  crime  and  by  a 
formal  trial.  And  they  who  advocate  it,  tell  us  to  look  into 
section  4th,  page  28th,  and  we  will  be  convinced.  AVell,  what 
now  is  section  4th  to  us,  in  a  question  of  this  sort?  That 
whole  section  is  statutory.  Were  it  a  part  of  our  Church 
constitution,  it  might  be  invoked  as  authoritative.  Mere  rules 
as  they  are,  and  alterable  by  us  in  ten  minutes,  by  two  Confer- 
ence votes,  they  expressly  recognize  our  authority  to  '  expel  a 
Bishop  for  improper  conduct.'  Why  then  urge  any  thing  in 
the  fourth  section  against  this  pending  resolution?  If  there 
were  no  express  rule  for  deposing  a  Bishop,  we  should  still  be 
competent  to  depose.  And  for  this  plain  reason.  Whatever 
this  Conference  can  constitutionally  do,  it  can  do  without  first 
resolving  that  it  has  power  to  do  it — without  passing  a  rule 
into  the  Discipline  declaring  its  authority.  The  power  of  this 
Conference  is  derived,  not  from  its  own  enactment,  but  from 
the  constitution.  Is  there  any  thing  in  the  restrictive  articles 
which  prohibits  the  removal  or  suspension  of  a  Bishop?  This 
will  not  be  pretended,  and  of  course  nothing  in  our  own  statutes 
can  deprive  us  of  powers  conferred  on  us  by  the  higher  authority 
of  the  constitution. 

"  Suppose  the  fourth  section  provided  that  this  body  '  has  not 
power  to  depose  a  Bishop  for  improper  conduct,  if  it  seem 
necessary.'  We  should  still  have  the  power  to  depose,  because 
the  constitution  confers  it,  and  that  is  paramount  to  all  our 
resolutions  and  statutes.  We  cannot  by  our  enactments  divest 
ourselves  of  constitutional  powers,  no  more  than  man  made  in 
God's  image,  and  about  to  inhabit  God's  eternity,  can  spurn 
the  law  of  his  being,  and  divest  himself  of  free  agency  and 
immortality. 

"  Now  let  me  proceed  after  the  manner  of  mathematicians. 
We  have  seen,  if  I  mistake  not,  that  a  provision  in  the  4th 
section,  page  28th,  declaring  our  incompetency  to  depose,  would 
still  leave  us  free  to  do  it,  because  the  superior  authority  of  the 
constitution  confers  the  power.  Much  more  then  may  we 
depose,  if,  instead  of  a  statute  forbidding  it,  the  Discipline  is 
silent  on  the  subject." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  37 

Of  the  meaning-  of  the  rule  authorizing  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  "  expel  a  Bishop  for  improper  conduct,"  he  says, — 

'"  Have  power  to  expel,'  sets  forth  the  extent  to  which  we 
may  proceed  in  our  efforts  to  guard  against  the  consequences 
of  a  Bishop's  improprieties.  The  expulsion  contemplated  is 
doubtless  from  oihce.  For  though  depose  is  the  word  gener all}' 
used  in  such  connections,  expel  is  not  less  significant  of  the 
thing.     To  put  out  of  othce  is  expulsion." 

This  position  is  perhaps  entirely  new;  and  plausible  as  it 
may  ap])ear,  has  this  slight  inconvenience  attendant  on  it.  If 
to  expel  for  improper  conduct  means,  as  Bishop  Hamline  tells  us, 
to  depose  from  olhce  for  an  oflence  "  less  than  imprudence,"  as 
the  \?iyv  designates  no  higher  crime  or  punishment  than  those, 
indicated  in  this  clause  in  case  of  a  Bishop,  if  he  should  be 
g:uilty  of  murder,  the  General  Conference  could  do  no  more 
than  depose  him  from  office  for  an  offence  less  than  impi-udence' 

In  carrying  out  his  theory,  Mr.  Hamline  uses  the  following 
language,  which,  without  attempting  to  comment  on,  we  think 
it  proper  to  record: — 

"That  the  Bishop's  is  an  office,  is,  I  suppose,  conceded. — 
True,  we  ordain  him;  but  we  may  cease  to  ordain,  and  In" 
suspending  the  Conference  rule  which  requires  a  day's  delay, 
may  immediately  blot  from  the  Discipline  these  words — 'page 
26 — "  and  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  three  Bishops,  or  at 
least  one  Bishop  and  two  elders."  Would  not  this  harmonize  our 
practice  and  our  principles^'' 

To  urge  the  Conference  to  action  in  this  delicate  and  diffi- 
cult case,  he  says,  "  When  the  Church  is  about  to  suffer  detri- 
ment which  we  by  constitutional  power  can  avert,  it  is  as  much 
t)  cason  in  us  not  to  exercise  the  poxoer  we  have,  as  to  usiup  in  other 
circumstances  that  which  ive  have  not.'''' 

Mr.  Comfort  followed  on  the  same  side,  highly  eulogizing 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Hamline,  and  characterizing  the  speeches  in 
this  discussion  as  "pettifogging."  He  said,  however,  that 
Bishop  Andrew  was  not  arraigned  for  "  improper  conduct,"  but 
simply  on  account  of  "  embarrassment."  He  spoke  of  the 
Bishop's  rumored  intention  to  resign,  to  avoid  this  difficulty, 
and  regarded  it  as  most  magnanimous,  and  the  responsibility 
as  resting  on  those  who  prevented  his  doing  so.  Division  had 
been  talked  of,  but  he  did  not  think  the  General  Conference 
possessed  any  such  power.  He  had  now  no  fears  for  the  unity 
of  the  Church.  "  He  believed  that  so  long  as  the  President 
occupied  that  chair  as  senior  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  he  would  preside  in  the  General  Conference  of  the 
ivhole  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

Dr.  Smith,  of  Virginia,  next  addressed  the  Conference.  He 
first  made  a  few  remarks  in  reply  to  Mr.  Hamline.     He  said, — 

4 


38  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

"From  the  fact  that  leaders  and  other  subordinate  officereof 
the  Church,  may  be  displaced  by  their  superiors,  he  [Mr.  Ham- 
line]  argues  that  a  Bishop  may  be  displaced  at  the  mere  dis- 
cretion of  the  General  Conference.  To  this  I  reply,  that  his 
analogy  does  not  hold,  because  preachers  and  presiding  elders 
are  themselves  immediately  responsiljle  to  higher  officers  for 
any  act  by  which  they  displace  an  inferior  officer;  but  there  is 
no  body  superior  to  the  General  Conference,  and  if  it  be  not 
bound  to  observe  its  oMai  rules  in  its  administrative  acts,  then 
it  is  irresponsible.  Its  course  is  as  unsteady  as  the  fitful  winds 
— its  government  is  the  mere  Mali  of  a  majority — in  other 
words,  a  popular  tyranny.  He  assigns  this  absolute  adminis- 
trative power  to  the  General  Conference — not  even  controlled 
by  its  own  existing  rules.  Such  was  the  doctrine  as  it  fell  upon 
my  ear.  To  sustain  this,  he  gives  equal  legislative  powers. 
Sir,  I  deny  the  whole.  I  commend  to  his  attention  the  report 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1828,  in  which  this  doctrine  is 
repudiated  in  the  strongest  terms.  This  body  has  no  such 
legislative  or  administrative  powers.  They  are  strictly  bound 
to  be  governed  in  their  acts  of  administration  in  Bishop  An- 
drew's case,  and  every  other,  by  their  own  rules.  As  such  he 
is  entitled  to  a  formal  trial,  and  cannot  be  deposed  by  any  other 
process  that  does  not  involve  purely  extra-judicial  proceeding. 
1  protest  against  any  such  proceeding." 

After  giving  briefly  the  history  of  Bishop  Andrew's  connec- 
tion with  slavery,  he  proceeded: — 

"Now  I  maintain,  that  in  no  ofl^ensive  sense  is  Bishop  An- 
drew a  slaveholder;  i.  e.,  the  sense  in  which  the  Discipline 
defines  a  slaveholder.  Two  attributes  must  attach  to  the  act  of 
holding  this  property  to  make  it  oflensive  in  the  sense  of  the 
Discipline.  First.  It  must  be  received  and  held  with  an  inten- 
tion to  enslave.  Surely  Bishop  Andrew  did  not  do  this!  No 
one  has  charged  him  with  it.  Second.  The  person  holding 
the  slave  must  of  purpose  omit  to  manumit,  when  by  doing  so 
he  could  secure  his  freedom.  It  is  equally  certain  that  Bishop 
Andrew  has  not  done  this.  He  is  then  not  a  slaveholder  in  an 
oflensive  sense.  An  ultra- abolitionist  alone  could  have  the 
hardihoocho  pronounce  him  one.  It  is  only  pretended  that  he 
is  '  connected  with  slavery.'  Interpret  this  by  the  offensive 
terms  employed  by  speakers,  and  the  plain  meaning  of  the 
offence  charged  is  .simply  this, — that  he  married  the  lady  of  his 
choice,  ivithout  stoppinff  to  consult  the  tastes  and  abolition  affinities  of 
New  England  Methodists!  And  for  this  he  is  to  be  dishonored  be- 
fore the  v-orld  as  having  brought  a  stain  vpon  Methodism.  How, 
sir,  is  this  likely  to  be  received  at  the  South?  Must  there  not 
come  up,  from  the  very  foundations  of  society,  one  united  voice 
of  scathing  rebuke? 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  39 

"  It  is  in  vain  to  plead  that  this  course  is  called  for  by  reasons 
arising  out  of  the  character  of  our  episcopacy  as  a  general 
8uperintendency.  The  present  prosecution  foMows  directly  oii 
the  heels  of  the  Baltimore  case.  Mr.  Harding,  an  cider  only,  was 
required  by  the  Baltimore  Conference  to  give  an  unconditional 
pledge  that  he  ^vould  manumit  slaves,  which,  under  the  laws 
of  the  State,  did  not  belong  to  him.  This  General  Conference 
has  sustained  their  decision.  Bishop  Andrew,  who,  any  more 
than  Mr.  Harding,  cannot  move  in  the  matter,  if  he  would,  by 
reason  of  the  laws  of  the  State,  must,  we  are  told,  share  the 
same  fate.  It  is  purely  an  abolition  movement.  In  no  other 
light  can  it  be  received  at  the  South." 

He  proceeds  to  state  the  grounds  upon  which  it  is  proposed 
to  deprive  Bishop  Andrew  of  office, — the  first  of  which  is,  that 
by  his  marriage  he  rendered  himself  unacceptable  to  a  large 
portion  of  the  Church  in  the  North.  This  Dr.  Smith  meets  in 
an  argument  of  considerable  length.  The  following  are  some 
of  his  remarks  in  stating  and  answering  the  other  general 
positions  of  the  party  opposed  to  Bishop  Andrew: — 

"  The  second  ground  on  which  it  is  sought  to  convict  Bishop 
Andrew  of  '  improper  conduct,'  is,  that  by  becoming  connected 
with  slavery  he  has  violated  the  '  settled  policy  of  the  Churdi.''  But 
what  is  our  policy  in  relation  to  ministers  holding  slaves?  It  is 
settled  in  the  compromise  rule.  No  one  has  affirmed  that  his 
case  does  not  fall  within  the  provisions  of  this  rule.  Then  his 
present  position  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  '  settled  policy' 
of  the  Church,  as  defined  in  the  compromise  rule. 

"The  mover  of  the  original  resolution,  Rev.  A.  Griffith  of 
Baltimore,  did  not  surely  have  this  in  view.  He  no  doubt 
meant,  by  the  '  settled  policy  of  the  Church,'  the  motives  which 
usually  influenced  members  in  voting  for  Bishops.  Strange 
source,  to  be  sure,  to  look  to  for  the  policy  of  the  Church!  But 
he  is  quite  as  unfortunate  as  unwise  in  this  appeal  to  the  policy 
of  the  Church.  I  present  him  a  dilemma.  The  membes  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1832,  who  voted  for  James  O.  An- 
drew as  a  Southern  man,  to  be  Bishop,  eWier  did  so  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  COMPROMISE  RULE,  or  tliey  did  not:  if  they  did.  Bishop 
Andrew  was  then  elected  on  the  principle  of  the  compromise 
rule,  and  he  is  not  an  offender  against  the  principles  of  his 
election,  because  his  present  position  in  relation  to  slavery  is 
within  the  provisions  of  this  rule,  as  no  one  denies.  //'  they  did 
not,  then  they  deceived  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church, 
by  publishing  to  the  world,  in  the  book  of  Discipline,  that 
the  basis  of  compromise  laid  in  the  rule  on  slavery,  should 
govern  their  elections.  Hence  either  Bishop  Andrew  is  not  an 
offender  against  the  principles  on  which  he  was  elected,  or 
those  who  elected  him  were  deceivers.     Mr.  Griffith,  and  his 


40  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

friends  who  voted  with  him  in  electing  Bishop  Andrew  in  1832, 
may  take  which  horn  of  the  dilemma  they  please. 

"  The  third  gi^und  on  which  this  extra  proceeding  is  based  is, 
that  his  present  position,  as  a  slaveholding  Bishop,  '  is  in  viola- 
tion of  the  usage,'  or  common  law  of  the  Church.  Dr.  Olin, 
whom  I  regret  to  know  has  avowed  himself  against  us  iii  this 
controversy,  has,  nevertheless,  agreed  with  Dr.*Winans  in 
setting  aside  this  position,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  an  omis- 
sion to  elect  a  slaveholder  a  Bishop  is  no  proof  that  it  is  the 
usage  of  the  Charch  that  a  slaveholder  shall  not  be  Bishop. 
But,  sir,  it  is  not  with  argoiments  of  this  kind  I  seek  to  engage 
your  attention,  but  rather  with  the  law  in  the  case. 

"  In  civil  jurisprudence  the  common  law  is  necessarily  subor- 
dinate in  authority  to  the  statute  law.  So  in  ecclesiastical 
administration,  the  common  usage  must  yield  to  the  specific  rule 
of  Discipline.  Consequently,  if  there  be  a  usage  among  us 
which  violates  the  plain  provisions  of  the  rule  on  slavery,  it 
should  be  given  up  as  contrary  to  Methodist  Discipline.  Hence 
if  there  be  such  a  usage  as  that  contended  for  so  earnestly  by 
.speakers,  it  is  of  no  authority  at  all. 

"  The  fourth  ground  taken  is  this:  '  Bishop  Andrew  icas  nom- 
inated hi)  our  Southern  brethren,  and  elected  by  the  Genend  Confer- 
ence of  1832,  as  a  candidate  ivho,  thongh  living  amidst  a  slavcliolding 
population.,  icas  nevcrtlieless  free  fro7n  all  connection  with  slavery;'' 
hence  it  is  maintained,  ^  that  his  pi-esent  position  is  in  violation  of 
good  faith:  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"If  Bishop  Andrew  "vvas  elected  on  the  ground  that  he  was 
not  a  slaveholder,  he  liJis  assured  us  that  it  was  from  no  pledge 
given  or  in  any  way  authorized  by  him  that  he  would  not 
become  one.  Neither  does  his  position  at  present,  sir,  viohde  any 
ohligfdion  implied  in  his  election.  He  was  elected,  it  is  well  known, 
because  he  resided  in  a  slaveholding  State,  and  he  was  expected 
to  continue  to  reside  there.  Now,  sir,  can  it  be  supposed  that 
the  General  Conference  of  1832  was  so  imbecile  of  mind  as 
not  to  have  known,  at  the  time  of  his  election,  that  from  his 
very  location  and  circumstances  he  "v\^as  at  all  times  liable  to 
become  connected  with  slavery,  by  the  death  of  friends  or  by 
marriage — and  that  in  all  human  probability  he  would  become 
so  connected,  in  process  of  time?  In  view  of  this  obvious 
probability  he  was  elected.  And  let  me  remind  you  that  they 
were  often  told  of  these  liabilities.  I  myself  urged  them  as  a 
reason  why  they  should  elect  the  individual  whom  I  preferred, 
on  the  ground  of  his  being  a  slaveholder.  The  answer  usually 
given  was  a  very  natural  one.  We  will  elect  Andrew  in 
preference  to  one  who  is  a  slaveholder,  because  it  will  secure 
a  more  harmonious  vote  in  the  North  and  West;  and  if  he 
should  become  connected  with  slavery,  as  you  state,  and  as  we 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  41 

allow  he  may  be,  why  then  it  will  be  in  the  providence  of  God, 
and  fall  within  the  provisions  of  the  compromise  rule — (Uid 
we  must  submit  to  it.  They  M^ould  then  tm-n  my  argument  upon 
me,  and  urge  me  to  vote  for  Andrew  in  the  spirit  of  conciliation. 
And  now,  sir,  since  this  result  has  transpired — a  result  which 
school  boys  could  have  forecast,  in  view  of  which  (unless  you 
suppose  the  Conference  of  1832  distinguished  by  the  merest 
imbecility)  James  O.  Andrew  was  elected — will  you  now  cen- 
sure him?  will  you  now  seek  to  degrade  him?" 

On  the  point  of  the  "  general  superintendency,"  so  much 
stressed  in  this  controversy,  he  says: — 

"  It  is  in  vain,  sir,  to  plead  in  defence  of  this  most  unwarrant- 
able proceeding,  that  the  constitutional  feature  of  our  episcopacy, 
viz.,  that  it  shall  be  a  general  superintendency,  demands  that 
he  should  desist  from  the  duties  of  his  office.  The  plan  of 
annually  presiding  in  every  Conference,  or  once  within  the 
recess  of  the  sessions  of  General  Conference,  expu'ed  with 
Bishop  Asbury.  No  one  since  his  day  has  done  this.  Bishop 
Hedding  has  not  visited  the  Southern  Conferences,  if  at  all,  not 
more  than  once,  in  twenty  years.  Is  he  less  a  general  superin- 
tendent for  this?  A  general  superintendency,  as  interpreted  by 
the  practice  of  late  years,  implies  eligibility  to  preside  in  any 
Conference,  but  an  actual  presidency  only  where  prudence 
demands  it." 

Mr.  J.  A.  Collins,  of  Baltimore,  insisted  that  the  usage  of  the 
Church  was  opposed  to  having  a  slaveholding  Bishop.  He 
replied  to  some  remarks  of  Dr.  Longstreet — defended  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  and  said  "he  considered  his  Southern 
brethren  the  most  useful  ministers  of  the  Church."  He  said  it 
was  due  Bishop  Andrew  to  say  that  he  was  prepared  to  resign 
when  he  found  he  was  in  this  difficulty.  Dr.  Longstreet  here 
explained  on  this  point.     When  he  had  done, 

Bishop  Andrew  arose  and  said,'  "  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Long- 
street  were  correct.  He  heard,  when  he  arrived  at  Baltimore, 
a  rumor  of  the  intention  of  the  Conference,  and  when  he 
arrived  at  New  York,  he  learned  that  the  edict  was  confirmed 
that  he  must  resign  or  be  deposed.  He  never  thought  the 
subject  would  become  one  of  grave  discussion:  if  he  had 
oflended  the  Discipline,  he  was  willing  to  resign,  if  by  doing 
so  he  could  remove  their  difficulties;  he  had  no  fondness  for  the 
episcopacy,  particularly  now,  in  the  form  in  which  it  had  been 
held  up  to  that  Conference,  and  he  pitied  the  man  who  could 
remain  in  it,  or  accept  it  at  their  hands.  If  he  could  secure 
the  peace  of  the  Church  by  resigning,  he  would  gladly  do  it. 
He  had  remarked  that  morning,  in  an  editorial  by  Dr.  Bond, 
that  it  was  said  it  all  rested  upon  him — he  was  to  be  made  the 
scape-goat,  and  the  desti'uction  of  the  Church  was  to  be  laid  upon 

4* 


42  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

him.  God  knew  it  was  not  so — if  his  resignation  was  necessary 
to  secure  the  peac&ofthe  Church,  he  would  at  once  make  it,  and 
return  home,  labor  as  he  had  done  among  the  slaves,  and  strive 
to  save  those  upon  whom  their  pretended  friends  were  inflicting 
sufl:ering  and  ruin." 

Mr.  Collins  continued.  "He  believed  every  word  of  it;  he 
loved  and  honored  the  man  more  than  any  other  on  the  bench, 
and  he  was  only  desirous  of  expressing  to  the  Conference  and 
the  people  his  reasons  for  giving  the  painful  vote  he  felt  com- 
pelled to  give  in  this  case.  He  then  submitted  a  preamble  and 
resolutions  as  follows: — 

"  Whereas,  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew,  one  of  the  Bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  has  become  connected  with 
slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise;  and  whereas  a  large  pro- 
portion of  our  ministry  and  membership  in  many  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  are  known  to  have  been  alwaj^s  opposed  to  the 
election  of  a  slaveholding  Bishop,  believing  that  such  an  event 
is  in  contravention  of  the  Discipline,  which  contemplates  the 
episcopacy  as  an  '  itinerant  general  superintendency,'  and 
calculated  also  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  slavery;  and  whereas 
the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church  in  the  non-slaveholding 
Conferences  will  be  liable  to  serious  interruption  from  the 
connection  of  Bishop  Andre^v  w4th  slavery,  Avithout  some 
definite  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  relation  to  it; 
therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  members  of  this  General  Conference  are 
constrained  to  express  their  profound  regret,  that  Rev.  James 
O.  Andrew,  one  of  the  general  superintendents,  has  become 
connected  with  slavery,  in  view  of  the  fact,  that  while  thus 
circumstanced  he  cannot  perform  the  duties  of  his  office  accep- 
tably to  a  large  proportion  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  our 
Church. 

"  Resolved,  That  Bishop  Andrew  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  affec- 
tionately and  earnestly  requested  to  take  the  necessary  measures 
to  free  himself  from  connection  with  slavery  at  the  earliest 
period  practicable  within  the  ensuing  four  years. 

"  Resolved,  That  all  the  matter  pertaining  to  the  appeal  of 
Rev.  Silas  Comfort,  tried  at  the  session  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence in  1840,  be  erased  from  the  journal." 

Bishop  Andrew  then  addressed  the  Conference:— 

"  Mr.  President, — I  have  been  on  trial  now  for  a  week,  and 
feel  desirous  that  it  should  come  to  a  close.  For  a  week  I  have 
been  compelled  to  listen  to  discussions  of  which  I  have  been 
the  subject,  and  I  must  have  been  more  than  man,  or  less  than 
man,  not  to  have  felt.  Sir,  I  have  felt,  and  felt  deeply.  I  am  not 
offended  with  any  man.  The  most  of  those  who  have  spoken 
against  me,  have  ti-eated  me  respectfully,  and  have  been  as 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  43 

mild  as  I  had  any  right  to  expect.  I  cherish  no  unkindly  feel- 
ings toward  any.  I  do  not  quarrel  with  my  abolition  brethren, 
though  1  believe  their  opinions  to  be  erroneous  and  mischievous. 
Yet  so  long  as  they  conduct  themselves  courteously  toward  me, 
I  have  no  quarrel  with  them.  It  is  due  that  some  remarks 
should  be  made  by  me  before  the  Conference  come  to  a  con- 
clusion upon  the  question,  which  I  hope  will  be  speedily  done, 
for  I  think  a  week  is  long  enough  for  a  man  to  be  shot  at,  and  it 
is  time  the  discussion  should  terminate. 

"  As  there  has  been  frequent  reference  to  the  circumstances 
of  my  election  to  the  episcopal  office,  it  is  perhaps  proper  that 
I  give  a  brief  history  of  that  matter.  A  friend  of  mine  (brother 
Hodges)  now  with  God,  asked  me  to  permit  myself  to  be  put 
in  nomination  for  that  office.  I  objected — the  office  had  no 
charms  for  me.  I  was  with  a  Conference  that  I  loved, 
and  that  loved  me.  What  was  I  to  gain  to  be  separated 
fi-om  a  happy  home — from  a  wife  and  chikh-en  whom  I  loved 
more  than  1  did  my  own  life?  But  my  friend  urged  me;  he 
said  my  election  would,  he  believed,  tend  to  promote  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  and  that  he  believed  it  would  be  especially 
important  to  the  prosperity  of  Methodism  at  the  South.  Finally, 
I  consented,  with  the  hope  of  failure;  but  I  was  nominated  and 
elected.  I  was  never  asked  if  I  was  a  slaveholder — no  man 
asked  me  what  were  my  principles  on  the  subject;  no  one  dared 
to  ask  of  me  a  pledge  in  this  matter,  or  it  would  have  been  met 
as  it  deserved.  Only  one  man,  brother  Winans,  spoke  to  me 
on  the  subject:  he  said  he  could  not  vote  for  me,  because  he 
believed  I  was  nominated  under  the  impression  that  I  was  not 
a  slaveholder.  I  told  him  that  I  had  not  sought  the  nomination, 
nor  did  I  desire  the  office,  and  that  my  opinions  on  the  propriety 
of  making  non-slavehokling  a  test  of  qualification  for  the  office 
of  Bishop,  were  entirely  in  unison  with  his  own.  Sir,  I  do  not 
believe  in  this  matter  of  secret  will  as  a  rule  of  action,  either  in 
the  revelations  of  the  Bible,  or  in  the  prescriptions  of  the  book 
of  Discipline.  I  believe  in  the  revealed  will  of  God,  and  in  the 
written  law  of  the  Church,  as  contained  in  the  book  of  Discip- 
line. I  took  oihce  upon  the  broad  platform  of  that  book,  and 
I  believe  my  case  is  covered  by  it.  It  was  known  that  I  was 
to  reside  at  the  South:  I  was  elected  in  view  of  that  very  thing, 
as  it  was  judged  important  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church, 
that  one  of  the  Bishops  should  reside  in  that  section  of  the  work, 
and  it  was  judged  I  could  be  more  useful  there  than  elsewhere. 
Well,  what  was  I  to  do  then?  I  was  located  in  a  country  where 
free  persons  could  not  be  obtained  for  hire;  and  I  could  not  do  the 
work  of  the  family;  my  \vife  could  not  do  it;  what  was  I  to  do? 
I  was  compelled  to  hire  slaves  and  pay  then'  master  for  their 
hire;  but  1  had  to  change  them  every  year — they  were  bad 


44  HIBTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

servants,  for  they  had  no  interest  in  me  or  mine — and  I  beheve 
it  would  have  been  less  sin  before  God  to  have  bought  a  servant 
who  would  have  taken  an  interest  in  me  and  I  in  him:  but  I 
did  not  do  so. 

"  At  length,  however,  I  came  in  possession  of  slaves,  and  I  am 
a  slaveholder,  as  I  have  already  explained  to  the  Conference, 
and  I  cannot  help  myself.  It  is  known  that  I  have  waded 
through  deep  sorrows  at  the  South  during  the  last  four  years; 
I  have  buried  the  wife  of  my  youth  and  the  mother  of  my 
children,  who  left  me  with  a  family  of  motherless  children,  who 
needed  a  friend  and  a  mother.  I  sought  to  make  my  home  a 
happy  one — and  I  have  done  so.  Sir,  I  have  no  apology  to 
make.  It  has  been  said,  I  did  this  thing  voluntarily,  and  with 
my  eyes  open.  I  did  so  deliberately  and  in  the  fear  of  God — 
and  God  has  blessed  our  union.  I  might  have  avoided  this 
difficulty  by  resorting  to  a  trick — by  making  over  these  slaves 
to  my  wife  before  marriage,  or  by  doing  as  a  friend,  who  has 
taken  ground  in  favor  of  the  resolution  before  you,  suggested. 
'Why,'  said  he,  '  did  you  not  let  your  wife  make  over  these 
negroes  to  her  children,  securing  her  annuity  from  them? '  Sir, 
my  conscience  would  not  allow  me  to  do  this  thing.  If  I  had 
done  so,  and  those  negroes  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  those 
who  would  have  treated  them  unkindly,  I  should  have  been 
unhappy.  Strange  as  it  may  seem  to  brethren,  I  am  a  slave- 
holder for  conscience'  sake.  I  have  no  doubt  that  my  wife 
would,  without  a  moment's  hesitation,  consent  to  the  manumis- 
sion of  those  slaves,  if  I  thought  proper  to  do  it.  I  know  she 
would  unhesitatingly  consent  to  any  arrangement  I  might 
deem  it  proper  to  make  on  the  subject.  But  how  am  I  to  free 
them?  Some  of  them  are  old,  too  old  to  work  to  support 
themselves,  and  are  only  an  expense  to  me;  and  some  of  them 
are  little  children:  wdiere  shall  I  send  these,  and  who  will 
provide  for  them?  But  perhaps  I  shall  be  permitted  to  keep 
these;  but  then,  if  the  others  go,  how  shall  1  provide  for  these 
helpless  ones?  and  as  to  the  others,  to  what  free  state  should  I 
send  them?  and  Avhat  \vould  be  their  condition?  Besides,  many 
of  them  would  not  go — they  love  their  mistress,  and  could  not 
be  induced  under  any  circumstances  to  leave  her.  Sir,  an  aged 
and  res])ectable  minister  said  to  me  several  years  ago,  when  I 
had  stated  just  such  a  case  to  him,  and  asked  him  what  he 
would  do,  '  I  would  set  them  free,'  said  he,  '  I'd  wash  my  hands 
of  them,  and  if  they  went  to  the  devil,  I'd  be  clear  of  them.' 
Sir,  into  such  views  of  religion  or  philanthropy  my  soul  cannot 
enter.  I  believe  the  providence  of  God  has  thrown  these 
creatures  into  my  hands,  and  he  holds  me  responsible  for  their 
proper  treatment.  I  have  secured  them  to  my  wife  by  a  deed 
of  trust  since  our  marriage.     This  arrangement  was  only  in 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  45 

accordance  with  an  understanding  existing  previous  to  mar- 
riage. These  servants  were  hers;  she  had  inherited  them  from 
her  former  husband's  estate;  they  had  been  her  only  source  of 
support  during  her  widowhood,  and  wovild  still  be  her  only 
dependence  if  it  should  please  God  to  remove  me  from  her. 
I  have  nothing  to  leave  her.  I  have  given  my  life  to  the  Church 
i'rom  the  days  of  my  youth,  [and  I  am  now  fifty,]  and  although, 
as  I  have  previously  remarked,  she  would  consent  to  any 
arrangement  I  might  make,  yet  I  cannot  consent  to  take 
advantage  of  her  aftection  for  me  to  induce  her  to  do  what 
would  injure  her  without  at  all  benefitting  the  slaves. 

"  Sir,  I  did  not  for  a  moment  believe  that  this  body  of  grave 
and  reverend  ministers  "w^ould  make  this  a  subject  of  serious 
discussion.  I  thought  it  likely  that  there  might  be  some  warm 
ultra  brethren  who  would  take  some  exceptions  to  my  com'se, 
and  on  that  account  I  did  not  make  the  deed  of  trust  before 
marriage,  lest  some  should  suppose  I  designed  to  dodge  the 
responsibility  of  the  case.  Those  who  know  me  must  know 
that  I  would  not  be  governed  by  the  mere  matter  of  dollars 
and  cents.  What  can  I  do?  I  have  no  confession  to  make;  I 
intend  to  make  none.  I  stand  upon  the  broad  ground  of  the 
Discipline,  on  which  I  took  ofiice;  and  if  I  have  done  Avrong 
put  me  out.  The  Editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate  has  pre- 
judged this  case.  He  makes  me  the  scape-goat  of  all  the 
difficulties  which  abolition  excitement  has  gotten  up  at  the 
North.  I  am  the  only  one  to  blame,  in  his  opinion,  should 
mischief  grow  out  of  this  case.  But  I  repeat,  if  I  have  sinned 
against  the  Discipline,  I  refuse  not  to  die.  I  have  spent  my 
life  for  the  benefit  of  the  slaves.  When  I  was  but  a  boy  I  taught 
a  Sunday  school  for  slaves,  in  which  I  taught  a  number  of  them 
to  read,  and  from  that  period  till  this  day  I  have  devoted  my 
energies  to  the  promotion  of  their  happiness  and  salvation — ■ 
with  all  my  iniiuence,  in  private,  in  public,  with  my  tongue, 
with  my  pen,  I  have  assiduously  endeavored  to  promote  their 
present  and  eternal  happiness.  And  am  I  to  be  sacrificed  by 
those  who  have  done  little  or  nothing  for  them?  It  is  said,  I 
have  rendered  myself  unacceptable  to  our  people.  I  doubt 
this.  I  have  just  returned  from  Philadelphia,  where  they  knew 
me  to  be  a  slaveholder;  yet  they  flocked  to  hear  me,  and  the 
presence  of  God  was  with  us;  we  had  a  good,  warm,  old- 
fashioned  meeting.  I  may  be  unacceptable  in  New  York,  yet 
from  the  experience  I  have  had  I  doubt  even  that.  To  whom 
am  I  unacceptable?  Not  to  the  people  of  the  South,  neither 
masters  nor  slaves.  Has  my  connection  with  slaves  rendered 
me  less  acceptable  to  the  colored  people  of  the  South;  the  very 
people  for  whom  all  this  professed  sympathy  is  felt?  Does  the 
fact  that  1  am  a  slaveholder  make  me  less  respectable  among 


46  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

them?  Let  those  who  have  labored  long  among  them  answer 
the  question.  Sir,  I  venture  to  say,  that  in  Carolina  or  Georgia, 
I  could  to-day  get  more  votes  for  the  office  of  Bishop  from  the 
colored  people,  than  any  supporter  of  this  resolution,  let  him 
avow  himself  an  emancipator  as  openly  as  he  pleases.  To  the 
colored  people  of  the  South  then,  and  to  their  owners;  to  the 
entire  membership  of  the  slaveholding  Conferences,  I  would  not 
be  unacceptable;  but  perhaps  they  are  no  part  of  '  our  people.' 
In  short,  sir,  I  believe  I  should  not  be  unacceptable  to  one  half 
the  connection;  but  on  this  question  I  have  nothing  to  say. 
Should  the  Conference  think  proper  to  pass  me,  there  is  plenty 
of  ground  where  I  can  labor  acceptably  and  usefully.  The 
slaveholding  Conferences  will  present  a  field  sufficiently  large 
for  me,  should  I  live  to  the  age  of  Methuselah;  and  the  Bishops, 
in  arranging  the  work,  will  certainly  have  discretion  enough 
not  to  send  me  where  I  would  not  be  received;  nor  would  I 
obtrude  myself  upon  any  Conference,  or  lay  my  hands  on  the 
head  of  any  brother  who  w^ould  feel  himself  contaminated 
by  the  touch.  However,  on  this  subject  I  have  nothing  to 
say.  The  Conference  can  take  its  course,  but  I  protest  against 
the  proposed  action  as  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  Discipline, 
and  an  invasion  of  the  rights  secured  to  me  by  that  book. 
Yet,  let  the  Conference  take  the  steps  they  contemplate;  I  enter 
no  plea  for  merc}^;  I  make  no  appeal  for  sympathy.  Indeed,  I 
love  those  who  sympathize  with  me,  but  I  do  not  want  it  now. 
I  wish  you  to  act  coolly  and  deliberately,  and  in  the  fear  of 
God;  but  I  would  rather  that  the  Conference  would  change  the 
issue,  and  make  the  resolution  to  depose  the  Bishop,  and  take 
the  question  at  once,  for  I  am  tired  of  it.  The  country  is  be- 
coming agitated  on  the  subject,  and  I  hope  the  Conference  will 
act  forthwith  on  the  resolution." 

Mr.  Sehon  said  he  had  become  a  practical  emancipator;  but 
it  was  doubtful  if  he  had  benefitted  his  slaves  by  the  act,  as 
they  had  become  paupers,  dependant  on  charity. 

He  did  not  questien  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to 
depose  a  Bishop  for  good  cause,  after  regular  trial,  but  not  in 
the  informal  and  summary  wa)^  in  which  they  were  proceeding 
against  Bishop  Andrew.  He  was  confident  that  in  many 
places  in  the  non-slaveholding  States,  Bishop  Andrew  would 
now  be  received  with  as  much  cordiality  as  at  any  time  hereto- 
fore. 

Mr.  Winans,  of  Mississippi,  said,  that  he  should  confine  his 
remarks  to  the  fundamental  principles.  He  denied  that  the 
General  Conference  had  any  administrative  power  whatever, 
and  certainly  not  the  plenary  power  attributed  to  it  by  the 
brother  from  Ohio,  Mr.  Hamline.  It  is  only  a  creature,  having 
delegated  attributes,  and  no  other.     After  many  other  remarks, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  47 

he  said  he  had  spoken  too  long,  but  if  he  had  the  strength,  he 
would  protract  the  debate  till  January,  rather  than  they  should 
be  driven  forth  a  ruined  community — dissevered,  destroyed,  and 
gloried  over  by  other  denominations,  who  were  more  prudent 
in  these  matters  than  themselves. 

Mr.  Finley  said  he  had  been  taught  that  there  was  no  con- 
servation for  slavery  in  Methodism;  there  never  had  been,  and 
he  hoped  there  never  would  be.  If  so,  he  would  seek  another 
body.  He  contended  that  when  a  Bishop  or  minister  refused 
to  free  slaves  when  he  could  do  it,  he  could  be  cut  off  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  He  had  been  astonished,  he 
said,  at  many  of  the  reasons  given  by  the  speakers  on  the 
question,  and  particularly  with  regard  to  the  subject  of  slavery. 
He  had  always  taken  ground  against  it — he  had  preached 
against  it  in  the  face  of  slaveholders,  and  told  them  to  their 
teeth  that  it  was  an  evil,  and  that  they  were  doing  wrong. 
He  believed  that  slavery  would  never  have  taken  the  stand  it 
had,  but  for  the  connection  of  Methodist  ministers  with  it.  He 
had  heard  that  it  v^^as  done  out  of  charity  to  the  slaves,  but  he 
did  not  understand  it  so;  he  thought  it  a  queer  kind  of  charity 
to  sell  a  man. 

Mr.  Finley  said,  "  This  resolution  is  modified  to  the  most  easy 
requirement  it  could  be  to  meet  the  feelings  of  Southern 
brethren,  and  to  cover  the  principle,  and  from  this  ground  / 
will  not  be  moved.  No,  sir;  on  this  ground  will  I  stand  until  I 
die."  He  said,  to  retain  a  slaveholder  in  the  episcopacy  would 
be  equivalent  to  voting  for  a  slaveholder  directly  for  that  office, 
and  that  "  It  would  violate  the  constituted  law.  It  would 
injure,  if  not  totally  destroy,  this  vital  organ  of  our  itinerancy." 
"Any  man  who  can  say  it  is  right  for  him  to  hold  his  fellow 
being  in  bondage,  and  buy  and  sell  him  at  pleasure,  put  him 
under  an  overseer,  and  drive,  lohip,  and  linlf  starve  him,  and  that 
this  is  connived  at  by  the  Methodist  Church,  I  think  must  have 
a  queer  view  of  the  Church  and  her  Discipline.  I  now  say 
before  God,  that  whenever  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
shall  sanction  this  doctrine,  as  much  as  I  love  her,  I  will  leave 
her  and  seek  another."  "  I  never  will  agree  that  slavery  shall 
be  connected  in  any  way  with  episcopacy;  nor  any  where  else, 
only  by  necessity.  I  must  state  again,  that  from  this  principle 
/  never  niill  be  removed.'''' 

Mr.  Cartwright  addressed  the  Conference  in  support  of  the 
pending  resolution,  in  a  speech  of  some  length,  partly  in  a  playful 
strain,  but  of  a  miscellaneous  and  desultory  character,  rendering 
a  sketch  of  it  nearly  impracticable. 

Mr.  Stamper  spoke  in  opposition  to  the  resolution,  and 
especially  defended  the  doctrine  that  the  law  governing  the 
subject  of  slavery,  was  one  oi  compromise,  to  which  the  General 


48  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

Conference  was  sacredly  bound  to  adhere;  but  the  substitute 
could  not  be  passed  without  a  violation  of  that  law,  and  he 
was  therefore  bound  to  oppose  the  measure. 

May  29th.  The  Conference  passed  a  resolution  giving  leave 
to  Bishop  Soule  and  his  colleagues  to  address  the  body  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  if  they  saw  fit,  when  Mr.  Dunwody, 
who  was  entitled  to  the  floor,  had  concluded  his  remarks. 

After  the  passage  of  the  resolution,  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew  w^as  continued. 

Mr.  Dunwody,  of  South  Carolina,  took  the  floor.  After  some 
preliminary  remarks,  he  said  he  M^as  opposed  to  the  resolution 
on  three  grounds:  First,  it  was  unscriptural;  secondly,  it  was 
contrary  to  the  Discipline;  and,  thirdly,  it  would  be  mi.schievous 
in  its  effects.     He  spoke  at  considerable  length. 

Bishop  Soule  then  delivered  to  the  Conference  the  following 
address: — 

"  I  do  not  know  but  this  may  be  a  favorable  moment  for  me 
to  offer  to  the  Conference  the  few  remarks  I  desire  to  make 
before  final  action  shall  be  had  on  the  subject  which  is  now 
pending  before  the  Conference.  I  have  had  no  solicitude  with 
regard  to  the  period  of  time  when  I  should  offer  these  remarks, 
only  that  it  might  be  a  time  of  calmness  and  reflection.  I  will 
indulge  the  hope  that  this  is  such  a  time,  and  therefore  avail 
myself  of  the  opportunity.  I  rise,  sir,  at  this  moment,  as  I 
before  said,  vidth  all  the  calmness  which  the  occasion,  I  think, 
requires.  But  this  is  not  the  calm  that  precedes  the  tempest 
and  the  storm;  it  is  not  the  calmness  of  indifference;  it  cannot 
be.  It  is,  sir,  the  calmness  of  conviction.  It  is  the  calmness 
of  principle.  If  indeed  I  could  be  persuaded  that  my  very  re- 
spectable brother  from  the  Pittsburgh  Conference  was  entirely 
correct  in  his  opinion,  that  all  the  light  which  could  be  furnished 
on  this  subject  had  been  furnished,  I  should  not  rise  here.  There 
is  a  possibility  that  the  brother  may  be  mistaken.  I  cannot  say 
that  I  should  have  foreborne  to  arise  though  I  had  been  convinced 
of  the  correctness  of  the  judgment  of  the  respected  brother 
from  New  England,  that  though  we  should  sit  here  till  January 
next,  no  brother  would  be  changed  in  his  vote  on  this  question. 
I  say — I  do  not  know  that  I  should  have  foreborne  my  observa- 
tions though  I  might  have  been  convinced  of  the  correctness 
of  this  opinion;  but  if  no  more  light  could  be  produced,  any 
tiling  that  I  could  say  would  be  unavailing. 

There  are  periods,  sir,  in  the  history  of  the  life  of  every  man 
who  sustains  any  important  station  in  society,  who  holds  any 
important  relations  to  it,  when  his  individual  character  cannot, 
must  not  be  neutralized  by  the  laws  of  association.  Under 
this  view,  in  what  I  shall  say  to  this  Conference,  I  involve  no 
man  in  responsibility.     My  venerable  colleagues  are  in  no  way 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  40 

concerned  in  what  I  shall  say  to  this  Conference,  so  that  how- 
ever I  may  be  involved,  they  are  not  involved.  The  South,  on 
my  right  is  not  involved.  The  North  on  my  left,  is  not  involved . 
I  stand  in  this  regard  alone.  I  hope  not,  indeed,  alone  in  the 
sentiments  that  I  shall  express  to  the  Conference.  Brethren 
have  manifested  a  solicitude  to  bring  the  question  to  an  issue 
— to  close  the  debate  and  come  to  the  vote.  I  ask  brethren  if 
it  is  not  possible,  notwithstanding  the  time  which  has  been 
employed  in  this  discussion,  notwithstanding  the  large  views 
which  brethren  have  expressed  on  the  question  before  them, — ■ 
1  ask  is  it  not  possible  that  action  on  the  resolution  may  not  yet  be 
premature?  Society,  sir,  whether  civil  or  religious,  has  much 
more  to  fear  from  the  passions  of  men — ^of  its  members — than 
it  has  to  fear  from  calm  investigation  and  sober  inquiry.  I  am 
not  afraid  to  meet  the  calmness  of  deliberation  any  where.  I  am 
not  afraid  to  meet  it  here;  I  am  not  afraid  to  meet  it  in  the 
Annual  Conference;  I  am  not  afraid  to  meet  it  before  the  great 
religious  community  of  which  we  are  members  and  ministers. 
I  am  not;  but  I  fear  the  rage  of  the  passions  of  men.  I  fear 
excitements,  ardent  excitements,  prematurely  produced  in 
society;  and  I  apprehend  that  if  we  trace  the  history  of  asso- 
ciations, whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  we  shall  find  that  these 
premature  excitements,  waking  up  the  rage  of  passion,  have 
produced  greater  calamities  than  ever  were  produced  by  the 
calmness  of  deliberation  and  the  sobriety  of  inquiry,  however 
extensive  those  investigations  may  have  been.  The  sound  of 
the  trumpet  of  alarm  may  go  forth  from  within  these  conse- 
crated walls — the  sound  may  spread  itself  on  the  wings  of  the 
wind,  or  of  the  whirlwind,  over  the  length  and  breadth  of 
these  lands;  but,  sir,  when  this  sound  shall  have  died  away, 
when  the  elements  which  may  have  been  awakened  to  bois- 
terous and  tumultuous  action,  shall  subside  into  the  calmness 
of  inquiry  and  reason,  a  voice  may  return  to  this  hall,  wafted 
on  a  counterbreeze;  and  though  the  voice  be  not  heard  in  the 
thunder,  the  earthquake,  or  the  storm,  it  may  pierce  through 
tlie  veil  of  our  speculations,  and  our  theories,  and  the  first 
sound  will  be  heard  in  the  inquiry,  '  Wliat  is  the  cause?  ^  Well, 
sir,  it  will  be  the  province  of  reason  and  sobriety  to  answer. 
Here  it  is,  sir,  spread  out  before  me,  spread  out  before  you,  in 
a  plain,  unsophisticated  statement  of  facts  by  Bishop  An- 
drew. I  have  not  heard  a  brother  from  the  North — 1  have  not 
heard  a  brother  from  the  South — (and  I  have  listened  to  hear) 
— 'allege  that  there  were  any  other  facts,  that  there  were  any 
other  circumstances  having  any  bearing  whatever  on  the  mer- 
its of  the  case  now  before  you.  I  take  it  for  granted,  then, 
that  we  have  the  entire  facts  of  the  case  before  us;  and  these 
facts  are  the  cause  of  whatever  alarm,  whatever  excitement 

5 


50  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

jtiay  have  spread  through  our  beloved  Zion,  and  over  this 
continent. 

"  Now,  sir,  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  Conference  Mobile  I 
read  an  extract  from  the  address  of  your  general  superintend- 
ents at  your  last  session.     You  ^\'ill  indulge  me  in  this. 

" '  The  experience  of  more  than  half  a  century,  since  the 
organization  of  our  ecclesiastical  body,  will  afford  us  many 
important  lights  and  landmarks,  pointing  out  what  is  the  safest 
and  most  prudent  policy  to  be  pursued  in  our  oiiM^ard  course 
as  regards  African  slavery  in  these  States,  and  especially  in 
our  own  religious  community:  This  very  interesting  period  of 
our  history  is  distinguished  by  several  characteristic  features, 
having  a  special  claim  to  our  consideration  at  the  present  time, 
particularly  in  view  of  the  unusual  excitement  which  now 
prevails  on  the  subject,  not  only  in  the  different  Christian 
Churches,  but  also  in  the  civil  body.  And  first,  our  general 
rule  on  slavery,  which  forms  a  part  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  has  stood  from  the  beginning  unchanged,  as  testa- 
mentary of  our  sentiments  on  the  principle  of  slavery,  and  the 
slave  trade.  And  in  this  we  differ  in  no  respect  from  the  sen- 
timents of  our  venerable  founder,  or  from  those  of  the  wisest 
and  most  distinguished  statesmen  and  civilians  of  our  own 
and  other  enlightened  and  Christian  countries.  Secondly,  in 
all  the  enactments  of  the  Church  relating  to  slavery,  a  due 
and  respectful  regard  has  been  had  to  the  laws  of  the  States, 
never  requiring  emancipation  in  contravention  of  civil  author- 
ity, or  where  the  laws  of  the  States  would  not  allow  the 
liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom.  Thirdly,  the  simply  holding 
or  owning  slaves,  without  regard  to  circumstances,  has  not,  at 
any  period  of  the  existence  of  the  Church,  subjected  the  master 
to  excommunication.  Fourthly,  rules  have  been  made  from 
time  to  time,  regulating  the  sale  and  purchase  and  holding  of 
slaves,  with  reference  to  the  different  laws  of  the  States  where 
slavery  is  tolerated;  which,  upon  the  experience  of  the  great 
difficulties  of  administering  them,  and  the  unhappy  consequenc- 
es both  to  masters  and  servants,  have  been  as  often  changed 
or  repealed. 

"  '  These  important  facts,  which  form  prominent  parts  of  our 
past  history  as  a  Church,  may  very  properly  lead  us  to  inquire 
for  that  course  of  action  in  future  which  may  be  best  calculated 
to  preserve  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  whole  body,  promote 
the  greatest  happiness  of  the  slave  population,  and  advance 
generally,  in  the  rlaveholding  community  of  our  country,  the 
humane  and  hallowing  influence  of  our  holy  religion.  We 
cannot  withhold  from  you,  at  this  eventful  period,  the  solemn 
conviction  of  our  minds,  that  no  new  ecclesiastical  legislation 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  at  this  time,  will  have  a  tendency  to 
accomplish  these  most  desirable  objects.     And  we  are  fully 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  51 

persuaded,  that  as  a  body  of  Christian  ministers  we  shall 
accomplish  the  greatest  good  by  directing  our  individual  and 
united  efforts,  in  the  spirit  of  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity, 
to  bring  both  master  and  servant  under  the  sanctifying  influ- 
ence of  the  principles  of  that  gospel  which  teaches  the  duties 
of  every  relation,  and  enfoi-ces  the  faithful  discharge  of  them 
by  the  strongest  conceivable  motives.  Do  we  aim  at  the 
amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  slave?  How  can  we  so 
effectually  accomplish  this,  in  our  calling  as  ministers  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ,  as  by  employing  our  whole  influence  to  bring 
both  him  and  his  master  to  a  saving  knoMdedge  of  the  grace 
of  God,  and  to  a  practical  observance  of  those  relative  duties 
so  clearly  prescribed  in  the  writings  of  the  inspired  apostles? 

" '  Permit  us  to  add,  that  although  we  enter  not  into  the 
political  contentions  of  the  day,  neither  interfere  with  civil 
legislation,  nor  with  the  administration  of  the  laws,  we  cannot 
but  feel  a  deep  interest  in  whatever  affects  the  peace,  prosper- 
ity, and  happiness  of  our  beloved  country.  The  union  of  these 
States,  the  perpetuity  of  the  bonds  of  our  national  confedera- 
tion, the  reciprocal  confidence  of  the  diflerent  members  of  the 
great  civil  compact, — in  a  word,  the  loell-hcing  of  the  community 
of  which  we  are  members,  should  never  cease  to  lie  near  our 
hearts,  and  for  which  we  should  offer  up  our  sincere  and  most 
ardent  prayers  to  the  Almighty  Ruler  of  the  universe. 

"  '  But  can  we,  as  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  servants  of  a 
Master  '  whose  kingdom  is  not  of  this  "world,'  promote  these 
important  objects  in  any  way  so  truly  and  permanently  as  by 
pursuing  the  course  just  pointed  out?  Can  we,  at  this  eventful 
crisis,  render  a  better  service  to  our  country  than  by  laying 
aside  all  interference  with  relations  authorized  and  estab- 
lished by  the  civil  laws,  and  applying  om'selves  wholly  and 
faithfully  to  what  especially  appertains  to  our  '  high  and 
holy  calling;'  to  teach  and  enforce  the  moral  obligations  of 
the  gospel,  in  application  to  all  the  duties  growing  out  of  the 
different  relations  in  society?  By  a  diligent  devotion  to  this 
evangelical  employment,  with  an  humble  and  steadfast  reliance 
upon  the  aid  of  divine  influence,  the  number  of 'believing 
masters'  and  servants  may  be  constantly  increased,  the  kindest 
sentiments  and  aficctions  cultivated,  domestic  burdens  light- 
ened, mutual  confidence  cherished,  and  the  peace  and  happi- 
ness of  society  be  promoted.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  past 
history  aftbrds  us  any  correct  rules  of  judgment,  there  is  much 
cause  to  fear  that  the  influence  of  our  sacred  ofiice,  if  employed 
in  interference  with  the  relation  itself,  and  consequently  with 
the  civil  institutions  of  the  country,  will  rather  tend  to  prevent, 
than  to  accomplish,  these  desirable  ends.' 

"  Sir,  I  have  read  this  extract,  that  the  members  of  this  Gen- 


52  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

cral  Conference  who  were  not  present  at  the  last  session,  and 
this  listening  assembly,  who  may  not  have  heard  it  before,  may 
understand  distinctly  the  ground  on  which  I,  with  my  colleagues, 
stand  in  regard  to  these  questions.  I  desire  that  this  document 
may  stand  recorded  with  my  name  to  it,  till  I  sleep  in  the  dust 
of  the  earth.  (Amen.)  I  desire  to  leave  it  as  a  legacy  to  my 
children  and  my  children's  children,  and  if  I  might  be  permitted 
to  say  so,  I  would  leave  it  as  a  legacy  to  the  Church  when  I 
am  no  more.  1  w  ant  no  man  to  write  my  epitaph.  I  will 
Avrite  it  myself.  I  want  no  man  to  write  and  publish  my  life: 
ril  do  that  myself  as  far  as  I  think  it  may  be  necessary  tor  the 
interests  of  posterity  or  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church  of  God. 
1  regret,  in  reading  the  life  of  my  venerable  colleague,  who 
lias  gone  from  earth  to  heaven  since  your  last  session,  that  this 
document,  as  it  stood  connected  with  his  name,  has  not  ap- 
peared in  that  memoir.  I  thank  the  author  of  '  The  History 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,'  I  mean  Dr.  Bangs,  for 
having  presented  this  document  in  that  History.  I  met  it  in 
Europe,  and  I  am  glad  it  is  there.  I  never  wished  my  name 
detached  from  it,  no  never,  neva\  When  this  was  written, 
your  superintendents  believed  that  they  were  acting  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  pastoral  address  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence at  its  session  in  Cincinnati — we  think  so  now.  Well,  sir, 
1  have  only  one  further  remark  to  make  before  I  proceed  to 
the  chief  object  for  which  I  address  the  Conference  this  morn- 
ing. It  is  this.  I  desire  that  no  undue  influence  may  be  pro- 
duced from  the  peculiar  relation  in  which  I  stand  to  the  Church. 
Sympathy  may  exert  too  great  an  influence  when  it  is  brought 
to  bear  on  great  principles.  The  only  subject  which  has 
awakened  my  sympathy  during  the  whole  discussion,  is  the 
condition  of  my  sufiering  brethren  of  the  colored  race,  and  this 
never  fails  to  do  it.  No  matter  where  I  meet  the  man  of  color, 
whether  in  the  South,  or  in  the  North  with  the  amount  of 
liberty  he  enjoys,  the  sympathies  of  my  nature  are  awakened 
ibr  him.  Could  I  restore  bleeding  Africa  to  freedom,  to  inde- 
pendence, to  the  rights — to  all  the  rights  of  man,  I  would  gladly 
do  it.  But  this  I  cannot  do — you  cannot  do.  And  if  I  cannot 
burst  the  bonds  of  the  colored  man,  I  will  not  strengthen  them. 
Jf  I  cannot  extend  to  him  all  the  good  I  would,  I  will  never 
shut  him  out  from  the  benefits  which  I  have  it  in  my  power  to 
bestow.  But,  sir,  I  cannot  withhold  this  sentiment  from  the 
Conference,  that  with  the  mental  and  physical  labors  of  this 
relation,  I  could  never  have  been  sustained — I  could  never  have 
supported  myself — I  could  never  have  ministered  to  the  Church 
unless  I  had  been  settled  down  on  some  principles  equally  as 
changeless  as  the  throne  of  God,  in  my  estimation,  never,  never 
It  is  a  constant  recurrence  to  these  great  principles  that  has 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCU,    SOUTH.  53 

sustained  me  in  the  discharge  of  what  I  conceive  to  be  my 
duties — duties  which  grow  out  of  my  relation  to  the  Church, 
and  not  simply  to  this  Conference.  These  principles  have  sus- 
tained me  in  the  city  and  in  the  desert  waste;  they  have  sus- 
tained me  in  the  North,  and  they  have  sustained  me  in  the 
South;  they  have  sustained  me  in  the  quarters  of  the  black  man, 
and  in  the  huts  of  the  red  man.  Shake  me  from  these  princi- 
ples, and  I  am  done! — I  have  done,  1  say.  But  what  is  this? 
Why,  sir,  is  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  dependant  upon 
me?  Far  from  it;  her  interest  hangs  not  upon  my  shoulders 
at  all.  She  can  do  a  great  deal  better  without  me  than  I  can 
do  without  her;  much  better.  Well,  sir,  laying  aside  this  point 
— endeavoring  to  disengage  myself  as  far  as  possible,  consider 
me  as  expressing  my  ovv^n  opinions,  without  reference  to  my 
colleagues.  I  wish  to  say,  explicitly,  that  if  the  superinten- 
dents are  only  to  be  regarded  as  the  officers  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  conse- 
quently as  officers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  liable  to 
be  deposed  at  will  by  a  simple  majority  of  this  body,  without 
a  form  of  trial,  no  obligation  existing  growing  out  of  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  Church,  even  to  assign  cause  where- 
fore— I  say,  if  this  doctrine  be  a  correct  one,  every  thing  1  have 
to  say  hereafter  is  pow^erless,  and  falls  to  the  ground.  But 
])rethren  will  permit  me  to  saj^,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  al- 
though I  have  had  the  honor  and  privilege  to  be  a  member  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
ever  since  its  present  organization,  though  I  was  honored  with 
a  seat  in  the  convention  of  ministers  which  organized  it,  in 
this  respect  I  have  heard  for  the  first  time,  either  on  the  iloo]' 
of  this  Conference,  in  an  Annual  Conference,  or  through  the 
whole  of  the  private  membership  of  the  Church,  this  doctrine 
advanced:  this  is  the  first  time  I  ever  heard  it.  Of  course  it 
struck  rrie  as  a  novelty.  I  am  not  going  to  enter  the  arena  of 
controversy  with  this  Conference.  I  desire  that  my  position 
may  be  defined.  I  desire  to  understand  my  landmarks  as  a 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — not  the  Bishop  of 
the  General  Conference,  not  the  Bishop  of  any  Annual  Confer- 
ence. I  thought  that  the  constitution  of  the  Church — I  thought 
that  its  laws  and  regulations — 1  thought  that  the  many  solemn 
vows  of  ordination,  the  parchment  which  I  hold  under  the 
signatures  of  the  departed  dead;  I  thought  that  these  had 
defined  my  landmarks — I  thought  that  these  had  prescribed 
my  duties — I  thought  that  these  had  marked  out  my  course. 
In  my  operations,  I  have  acted  under  the  conviction  that  these 
were  my  directions  and  landmarks,  and  it  affords  me  great 
consolation  this  day  to  stand,  at  least  in  the  judgment  of  this 
body,  to  which  I  hold  myself  responsible,  and  before  which  i 

5* 


54  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

Avill  always  be  ready  to  appear  to  answer  any  charge  they  shall 
prefer  against  mc — I  say  it  affords  m^.  some  gratification  to 
have  stood  acquitted  for  twenty  years  in  the  discharge  of  the 
high  trust  committed  to  my  hands;  and  I  here  desire  to  offer 
my  grateful  acknowledgments  to  the  Episcopal  Committee  for 
the  report  they  have  brought  to  this  body,  and  to  the  Confer- 
<'.nce,  for  their  cordial  acceptance  of  that  report.  I  say  I  do  it 
Avith  sentiments  of  sincerity;  and  it  is  the  more  cordial  to  me 
in  view  of  what  may  yet  be  to  come.  In  this  regard,  although 
I  have  trembled  beneath  the  weight  of  responsibility,  and 
shrunk  before  the  consciousness  of  my  inability,  and  especially 
as  I  have  felt  my  physical  infirmities  coming  upon  me;  and 
Icnowing  that  I  must  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  mental  infirmity, 
I  stand  this  day  acquitted  in  my  own  conscience — (O  that  I  may 
be  acquitted  at  the  bar  of  my  eternal  Judge) — that  I  have  to 
the  best  of  my  ability,  with  sincerity  of  heart,  and  with  the 
ardent  desire  to  promote  the  great  interests  of  the  Church,  and 
the  cause  of  God,  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  you  have 
intrusted  to  me — I  have  never,  in  the  discharge  of  this  trust — - 
God  is  my  witness — I  have  never  given  an  appointment  to  any 
preacher  with  a  desire  or  design  to  afflict  him.  Indeed,  if  I  could 
do  it,  I  should  abhor  myself.  Now,  sir,  whether  this  Conference 
is  to  sustain  the  position  on  which  I  have  acted,  or  not,  they  are 
very  soon  to  settle  in  the  vote  which  is  before  them:  I  mean, 
they  are  to  settle  this  question,  whether  it  is  the  right  of  this 
body,  and  whether  they  have  the  power,  to  depose  a  Bishop  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — whether  they  have  a  right  to 
depose  my  colleague — to  depose  me,  without  a  form  of  trial. 
See  ye  to  that.  Without  specification  of  wrong,  and  by  almost 
universal  acclamation  over  this  whole  house,  that  Bishop  An- 
di-ew  has  been  unblamable  in  his  Christian  character;  without 
blame  in  his  ministerial  vocation;  that  he  has  discharged  the 
duties  of  his  sacred  office  to  the  Church  of  God  with  integrity, 
with  usefulness,  and  with  almost  universal  acceptability,  and 
in  good  faith; — with  this  declaration  before  the  community, 
before  the  world,  will  this  Conference  occupy  this  position,  that 
they  have  power,  authority  to  depose  Bishop  Andj-ew,  without 
a  form  of  trial,  without  charge,  and  without  being  once  called 
on  to  answer  for  himself  in  tlie  premises?  what  he  did  say  was 
voluntaiy. 

Well,  brethren,  I  had  conceived — I  had  understood  from  the 
beginning,  that  special  provision  was  made  for  the  trial  of 
a  Bishop.  The  constitution  has  provided  that  no  preacher,  no 
person  was  to  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  trial,  according  to 
the  forms  of  Discipline,  and  of  the  right  of  appeal;  but,  sir,  if 
I  understand  the  doctrine  advanced  and  vindicated,  it  is  that 
you  may  depose  a  Bishop  without  form  of  trial;   you  may 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  55 

dppose  him  without  any  obligation  to  show  cause,  and  thcre- 
ibre  he  is  the  only  minister  in  your  Church  who  has  no  appeal. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  Church  has  made  special  provision  for 
the  trial  of  the  Bishop,  for  the  special  reason  that  the  Bishop  has 
no  appeal.  Well  now,  sir,  I  only  maice  these  observations,  as 
I  said,  to  the  ear  of  reason.  You  Avill  remember  that  this 
whole  thing  is  going  out  before  the  world,  as  well  as  the  Church. 
I  wish  to  know  my  landmarks,  to  find  out  where  I  stand;  for 
indeed  I  don't  hesitate  to  say  to  you,  that  if  my  standing  and 
the  relation  in  which  I  have  been  placed  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  under  my  solemn  vows  of  ordination — if  my 
relation  is  to  stand  on  the  voice  of  a  simple  majority  of  this 
body,  without  a  form  of  trial,  and  without  an  obligation  even 
to  shoAv  me  cause  why  I  am  deposed,  I  have  some  doubt 
whether  there  is  the  man  on  this  floor  that  would  be  willing  to 
stand  in  my  place.  A^ow  brethren  will  perceive  at  once  the 
peculiar  situation  in  which  I  am  placed.  Here  are  my  brethren 
from  the  Ohio  and  from  other  Conferences.  We  have  been 
together  in  great  harmony  and  peace.  There  has  been  great 
union  of  spirit  every  where;  but  I  said  at  the  beginning,  there 
were  periods  in  the  history  of  every  man  occupying  any  im- 
portant relation  or  station  in  society,  when  his  individual 
character  and  influence  could  not  be  neutralized  by  the  laws 
of  association.  You  must  unmoor  me  from  my  anchorage  on 
the  basis  of  this  book,  you  must  unsettle  me  from  the  principles 
- — my  settled  and  fixed  principles.  From  these  I  cannot  be 
shaken  by  any  influences  on  my  right  hand  or  on  my  left  hand 
— -neither  the  zeal  of  youth  nor  the  experience  of  hoary  age 
shall  move  me  from  my  principles.  Convince  me  that  I  am 
wrong,  and  I  yield.  And  here  it  may  be  necessary  that  I 
should  make  an  observation  in  regard  to  what  I  have  said 
before — it  seems  to  have  been  misunderstood — I  said,  you 
cannot  immolate  me  on  a  Southern  altar;  you  cannot  immolate 
me  on  a  A^orthern  altar;  I  can  only  be  immolated  on  the  altar 
of  the  union  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  What  do 
I  mean  by  this?  I  mean— call  it  a  compact — -call  it  a  compro- 
mise, constitutional  discipline,  what  you  will — I  mean  on  the 
doctrines  and  provisions  of  this  book,  and  I  consider  this  as  the 
bond  of  union  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Here  then 
I  plant  my  feet,  and  here  I  stand.  Let  brethren,  sir,  not  mis- 
understand me  in  another  point,  a  point  in  which  they  may 
misunderstand  me,  in  which  I  have  been  misunderstood,  and 
you  join  me  on  this  point.  I  hold  that  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  E])iscopal  Church  has  an  indisputable  right, 
constitutional,  sacred,  to  arraign  at  her  tribunal  every  Bishop; 
to  try  us  there;  to  find  us  guilty  of  an  oflence  with  which  we 
are  charged  on  evidence,  and  to  excommunicate — ^^expel  us.     I 


56  HISTORY  OF  TIIE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

am  always  ready  to  appear  before  that  body  in  this  regard.  I 
recognize  fully  their  right.  But  not  for  myself — not  for  these 
men  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  hand,  but  for  your  sakes 
and  the  Church  of  God  of  which  you  are  members  and  minis- 
ters, let  me  ask  you,  let  me  entreat  you  not  to  rush  upon  the 
resolution  now  before  you.  Posterity,  sir,  will  review  your 
actions,  history  will  record  them;  and  whatever  we  may  do 
here  will  be  spread  out  before  the  face  of  the  world;  the  eyes 
of  men  will  be  fixed  upon  it.  In  this  view  I  was  not  surprised 
to  hear  brethren  say,  'Pause,  brethren,  I  beseech  you  pause;' 
and  I  was  not  surprised  to  see  men  of  mind  and  of  thought 
approach  the  thing  with  fear  and  trembling;  but  brethren 
apprehend  that  there  are  great  difficulties  involved  in  thi.s 
subject;  they  apprehend  that  fearful  consequences  are  to  take 
place  on  which  ever  side  of  the  question  they  shall  move.  Pass 
it,  and  the  South  suppose  themselves  involved  in  irretrievable 
ruin.  Refuse  to  pass  it,  and  the  North  consider  the  conse- 
quences perilous  to  them.  Permit  me  to  saj^,  sir,  that  I  have 
had  some  acquaintance,  personal  acquaintance,  both  with  the 
North  and  the  South;  I  think  I  have  been  able  to  cast  an 
impartial  eye  over  these  great  departments  of  the  Church.  I 
may  err  in  judgment,  but  I  apprehend  that  the  difficulties  may 
not  be  as  insurmountable  as  brethren  have  apprehended  them 
to  be.  I  know  that  some  of  my  brethren  of  the  North  are 
involved  in  such  a  manner  that  I  cannot  apprehend — I  see 
no  way  in  which  they  can  compromise  this  question.  Why? 
For  the  obvious  reason  that  it  involves  a  principle.  1  will  com- 
promise with  no  man  when  a  principle  is  involved  in  the  com- 
promise. What  is  that  principle?  The  men  that  avow  it  are 
as  honest  as  any  men  on  this  floor.  I  know  them:  in  the  men 
there  is  no  guile.  What  is  the  principle?  It  was  advanced 
by  my  worthy  brother  Cass  the  other  day.  Can  he  compromise 
the  principle?  You  must  convince  him  of  the  error  of  his 
principle  before  he  will  compromise  it.  What  is  it?  It  is  that 
.slavery,  under  all  circumstances,  is  sin  against  God." 

Mr.  Cass  interposed — "  May  I  correct  the  Bishop?  I  believe  1 
did  not  say  so — I  said  it  was  a  moral  evil." 

Bishop  Soule  proceeded — "Well,  I  am  glad  to  be  corrected. 
This  is  not  brother  Cass's  principle.  A  moral  evil — a  moral 
evil,  and  not  a  sin,  under  all  circumstances.  It  affords  me  a 
great  deal  of  pleasure  to  hear  my  worthy  brother's  statement, 
for  it  greatly  increases  my  hope  that  we  shall  have  a  compro- 
mise. 

"  Now,  sir,  notwithstanding  brethren  have  thought,  and  with 
perfect  sincerity,  that  they  were  ready  to  act  on  the  resolution 
-—although  undoubtedly  a  large  majority  of  this  body  have 
been  prepared  for  it  for  some  time,  I  cannot  but  believe  that  it 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  57 

might  be  prematm-e  in  the  Conference  taking  action  on  it  even 
now.  I  will  offer  one  or  two  reasons  ^vhy  I  think  the  Confer- 
ence is  not  prepared  for  action  on  the  resolution.  We  have 
been  informed  here  from  documents — to  a  great  extent  petitions 
and  memorials — on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  its  various  aspects 
and  interests.  These  documents — these  petitions  and  memo- 
rials— have  been  received  with  the  respect  due  to  the  right  of 
petition.  They  have  been  committed  to  a  large  and  judicious 
committee  to  examine  and  report.  That  committee  has  not 
reported  to  this  body;  it  will  report — I  need  not  say  to  you  that 
it  will  report.  The  respect  due  to  some  thousand  petitioners  to 
this  body  Mdll  lay  them  under  solemn  obligations  to  report;  and 
is  it  not  possible  that  this  report  on  the  subject  immediately 
connected  with  the  resolution  before  you — may  not  afford  you 
some  light?  You  will  have  in  the  report  of  that  committee 
several  important  items,  clearly  developed  before  you  of  in- 
formation. You  will  knoAV  the  number  of  petitioners — of  the 
memorialists  in  each  of  the  Annual  Conferences.  You  will 
know  the  relative  proportion  of  these  petitioners  to  the  whole 
number  of  the  Methodist  Church  within  these  Conferences. 
You  will  know  the  aggregate  number  of  all  these  memorialists 
and  petitioners,  and  you  will  consequently  know  the  relative 
number  in  regard  to  the  whole  community  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  It  will  not  be  disputed,  I  think,  on  the  floor 
of  this  General  Conference,  that  the  subjects,  so  far  as  they 
have  been  presented  when  the  memorials  were  up,  that  the 
subjects  on  which  you  are  memorialized  in  these  documents 
are  not  local.  They  are  not  subjects  appertaining  specially 
and  exclusively  to  the  memorialists.  So  far  as  I  heard,  every 
subject  was  of  a  general  character,  in  wdiich  every  member  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  East,  West,  North,  and  South, 
have  an  equal  interest  and  concern.  The  report  of  your  com- 
mittee may  throw  much  light  on  this  great  subject.  But  this 
is  not  all.  I  beg  to  .suggest  to  the  brethren  that  the  views  of  the 
great  body  of  the  Methodist  Church,  and  the  great  body  of  her 
ministers,  are  not,  and  cannot  be  represented  here,  in  regard  to 
the  special  point  before  you;  and  if  this  be  a  subject  in  which 
all  the  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  all  the 
members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chmxh,  have  an  equal 
interest  and  concern,  is  it  safe  for  this  body  to  proceed  to  such 
an  important  action  with  regard  to  the  whole  interests  of  the 
Church,  without  having  a  more  full  development  of  the  subject, 
both  from  ministers  and  Church,  than  the  memorials  as  yet 
presented  afford?  I  ask  it.  Now  will  the  delegation  from  New 
York  tell  us  what  are  the  views  of  the  great  body  of  Methodists 
within  the  New  York  Conference  on  this  subject?  We  have 
been  sitting  here,  Mr.  President,  on  this  case  almost  from  the 


58  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

time  we  commenced  it.  It  has  been,  however,  before  this 
community.  It  has  been  out  before  the  whole  Church,  and 
from  the  views  the  brethren  have  taken,  I  have  been  almost 
surprised  that  we  have  not  had  memorials  from  the  city  where 
we  sit;  I  have  been  almost  surprised  that  we  have  not  had 
memorials  from  the  people  in  Philadelphia,  from  the  people  in 
Baltimore,  from  the  people  in  Boston.  We  have  had  no 
memorials.  There  has  been  no  expression  on  their  part,  as  I 
have  heard;  and  yet  in  the  midst  of  this  enlightened  body  of 
Methodists  are  we  prepared  thus  to  say  what  is  the  view  of 
the  people  around  us  on  this  question?  and  under  such  circum- 
stances, do  you  hesitate  to  stay  the  question  in  the  resolution 
before  you?  I  beg  the  brethren  to  go  a  little  further  on  this 
subject.  I  will  go  with  my  brethren  to  Ohio.  Now  I  do  not 
know — I  am  a  resident  in  Ohio — I  have  some  acquaintance  in 
Ohio,  both  with  preachers  and  with  our  very  excellent  and 
worthy  membership  in  Ohio — my  brethren  from  them,  these 
delegates,  have  more,  and  doubtless  can  say  more;  but  I  should 
not  dare  on  the  floor  of  this  Conference  to  say  that  the  act 
would  meet  the  approbation  of  the  great  body  of  preachers 
and  members  in  Ohio:  I  dare  not  say  it.  It  is  sufficient  for  me, 
however,  in  the  present  position  I  occupy  to  say,  that  the 
Church  has  not  known  the  subject,  and  has  expressed  no  opinion 
on  the  subject  whatsoever.  I  settle  it  down,  then,  as  the  basis 
on  which  I  shall  proceed,  that  we  have  not,  and  cannot  have 
the  views  of  our  ministers  and  people  generally  on  this  subject, 
so  fully  expressed  to  us  as  to  others. 

"  The  adoption  of  that  resolution  deposes  Bishop  Andrew 
without  form  or  trial — such  is  my  deliberate  opinion:  I  do  not 
believe  it  is  safe  for  you,  and  I  am  out  of  the  question.  What 
shall  be  done?  The  question,  I  know,  wakes  up  the  mind 
of  every  brother.  Can  it  be  possible  that  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  is  in  such  a  state  of  excitement — in  such  a  state, 
I  had  almost  said,  of  revolution,  as  to  be  unprepared  to  send 
out  the  plain,  simple  facts  in  the  case  to  the  Churches,  to  the 
Annual  Conferences,  every  M^here  through  our  community, 
and  waive  all  action  on  this  subject  till  another  General  Con- 
ference? 

"  I  said,  almost  at  the  commencement  of  these  remarks,  sir, 
that  I  was  not  afraid  of  the  deliberation  of  men,  of  our  Annual 
Conferences,  of  the  General  Conference — I  am  afraid  of  the 
passions  of  men,  and  I  could  present  before  you  some  consid- 
erations to  illustrate  the  views  that  I  have  given  you;  and  if  I 
give  you  these  views  in  error  of  judgment,  be  assured  that  they 
are  not  views  which  originate  on  the  spur  of  the  moment:  they 
are  the  result  of  sober  and  deliberate  investigation.  Can  it 
be  possible  that  the  simple  circumstance  of  Bishop  Andrew's 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  59 

holding  an  ofRce  as  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  four  years  longer,  with  this  statement  of  facts  in  the 
case — simple  facts  in  the  case — spread  out  before  the  enlight- 
ened body  of  this  great  Methodist  community — is  there  to  be  an 
earthquake?  I  am  not  prepared  to  believe  it:  I  soberly  am  not 
prepared  to  believe  it.  Well,  sir,  this  is  the  view  that  I  take  of 
the  subject.  Permit  me  to  make  one  other  suggestion.  The 
providence  of  God  directs  the  whirlwind  and  the  storm;  clouds 
and  darkness  indeed  may  be  around  about  us,  but  righteous- 
ness and  justice  are  the  habitation  of  his  throne.  Let  us  be 
careful  that  we  never  sufl'er  a  human  arm  to  impede  the  opera- 
tions of  providence.  My  beloved  colleague,  Bishop  Andrew, 
and  myself,  and  all  my  colleagues,  may  have  passed  away 
from  these  scenes  of  trouble — and  the  passions  which  no\v 
agitate  the  Church  of  God,  may  go  to  sleep,  in  God's  provi- 
dence, long  before  four  years  go  by. 

"  How  easy  it  is  for  God  to  direct  the  elements  of  society! 
Don't  be  surprised,  then,  brethren,  when  I  say  to  you,  pause. 
Brethren  may  possibly  have  a  little  more  light:  there  may 
be  some  ray  from  heaven  or  earth  yet  to  shine  upon  this  subject. 
Now  it  is  the  solemn  conviction  of  my  mind  that  the  safest 
course  you  can  pursue  in  the  premises  is  to  pass  this  subject 
without  any  implication  of  Bishop  Andrew's  character  at  all, 
and  to  send  out  officially  the  plain  and  simple  facts  in  the  case 
to  all  your  societies — to  all  your  Conferences.  Let  it  be  read 
every  where,  and  then  we  may  have  a  further  expression  of 
opinion,  without  any  kind  of  agitation.  I  am  about  to  take  my 
leave  of  you,  my  brethren.  You  must  know — you  cannot  but 
know,  that  with  the  principles  I  have  stated  to  you — with  the 
avowal  of  my  sentiments  in  regard  to  this  subject — it  would 
not  be  Bishop  Andre^v  alone  that  your  word  will  affect!  No 
sir, — I  implicate  neither  my  colleagues  on  my  right  hand  nor 
on  my  left;  but  I  say  the  decision  of  the  question  could  not 
affect  Bishop  Andrew  alone.  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  under- 
stood, it  cannot  affect  him  alone.  I  mean  specially  in  this  point 
— I  say  that  the  resolution  on  which  we  are  just  about  to  act 
goes  to  sustain  the  doctrine  that  the  General  Conference  have 
power  and  right  to  depose  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  Avithout  the  form  of  trial — that  you  are  under 
no  obligation  from  the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  Chiu-ch  to 
show  cause  even.  Now  every  man  must  see,  and  every  man 
must  know,  that  Bishop  Andrew  cannot  be  involved  alone  in 
the  vote.  It  is  the  principle  which  is  involved.  It  goes  to  say 
that  when  this  Conference  shall  vote  on  the  subject — a  simple 
majority  of  the  Conference,  without  form  or  trial,  can  depose 
a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Do  you  under- 
stand it  so?    If  I  am  mistaken,  I  shall  stand  corrected — and  1 


60  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

need  not  say  to  this  Conference  that  such  a  decision  will 
involve  others  beside.  It  involves  the  office;  it  involves  the 
charge;  it  involves  the  relation  itself. 

"  And  now,  in  taking  leave,  I  offer  devout  prayer  to  Almighty 
God  that  you  may  be  directed  Mdsely  in  the  decision  you  are 
about  to  make.  I  have  given  to  you  what  in  my  sober  and 
deliberate  judgment  is  the  best  and  safest  course  which  you 
can  pursue— safest  for  all  concerned.  I  want  that  opinion  to 
have  no  more  influence  upon  you  than  it  justly  deserves  in  the 
Conference.  I  thank  the  Conference  for  the  attention  they 
have  been  pleased  to  give  me.  I  thank  the  audience  for  their 
attention.  I  very  well  know — I  am  not  at  all  unapprised  that 
the  position  I  occupy — in  which  I  stand  on  the  principles  of  that 
resolution — on  the  principles  involved  in  it — may  seal  my  fate. 
I  say  I  am  not  at  all  unap])rised  of  that.  Let  me  go;  but  I  pray 
you  hold  to  principles — to  principles;  and  with  these  remarks  I 
submit  the  whole  to  your  and  God's  direction. — (Amen.)" 

Dr.  Durbin  next  addressed  the  Conference  at  considerable 
length.  He  contended  that  it  was  only  necessary  to  know  in 
a  given  case,  that  e?7iancipation  uns  practicable,  leaxing  out  of 
vieAV  the  enjoyment  of  freedom  by  the  liberated  slave.  The 
course  of  concession,  Dr.  Durbin  said,  had  always  been  from 
the  North  to  the  South,  but  admitted  those  concessions  had 
been  made  to  the  necessities  of  the  South,  and  were  properly 
made.  He  contended  that  the  sole  power  of  the  Bishop  was 
derived  from  his  election  by  the  General  Conference,  and  that 
therefore  that  body  had  rightful  power  to  dispose  of  him  as 
they  might  deem  for  the  good  of  the  Church.  Of  the  character 
of  the  action  proposed  in  Bishop  Andi-ew's  case,  Dr.  Durbin 
spoke  as  follows: — 

"Now,  sir,  this  action  is  not  contemplated  without  cause. 
The  preamble  states  the  ground  of  action  clearly  and  distinctly, 
in  a  statement  of  undisputed  and  indisputable  facts.  And  what 
does  the  resolution  propose?  Expulsion?  No,  sir.  Deposition? 
No.  If  I  am  pressed  to  a  decision  of  this  case  in  its  present 
form,  I  shall  vote  for  that  substitute,  and  so  will  many  others; 
but  if,  after  we  have  voted  for  it,  any  man  should  come  and  tell 
us  personally  that  we  have  voted  to  depose  Bishop  Andrew,  we 
.should  consider  it  a  personal — shall  I  say — insult,  su-?  The 
substitute  proposes  only  to  express  the  sense  of  this  Conference 
in  regard  to  a  matter  which  it  cannot  in  duty  and  conscience 
pass  by  without  a  suitable  expression;  and  having  made  the 
solemn  expression,  it  leaves  Bishop  Andrew  to  act  as  his  sense 
of  duty  shall  dictate.  Will  any  of  the  brethren  on  the  other 
side  of  the  house  tell  us  that  if  such  is  our  deliberate  sense, 
and  Ave  deem  it  our  duty  to  the  Church  to  say  so,  we  ought  to 
suppress  it?" 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  61 

He  stressed  the  j^oint,  that  as  by  the  constitution  a  Bishop 
was  to  be  a  '■'■general  snpcjnntendcnt,^''  any  thing  that  would 
render  him  unacceptable  to  any  portion  of  the  work,  must 
disqualify  him  for  the  proper  exercise  of  his  episcopal  functions; 
and  as  a  connection  with  slavery  would  have  that  effect  in 
many  of  the  Northern  Conferences,  Bishop  Andrew  could  not, 
while  that  incumbrance  remained,  be  a  general  superintendent 
in  the  proper  and  constitutional  sense.* 

Dr.  Durbin  closed  his  speech  with  the  following  remarks  and 
resolution: — 

"•  I  will  conclude,  sir,  by  saying,  a  few  days  ago  brother  Early, 
from  Virginia,  threw  out  a  suggestion,  at  the  close  of  the  session, 
viz.,  might  not  this  matter  be  referred  back  to  the  Church  or 
the  Conferences?  This  course  was  distinctly  advised  by  your- 
self, sir,  this  morning,  in  your  address  to  the  Conference.  These 
weighty  facts  led  me  to  believe  that  the  North  would  meet  tlie 
South  on  the  following  resolution,  which  I  would  willingly 
offer  if  I  had  the  least  intimation  that  om*  brethren  from  the 
South  M^ould  meet  us  on  it,  viz: 

"  Resolved,  That  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  be  referred  to 
the  Church,  and  that  the  judgment  of  the  next  General  Con- 
ference be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  the  voice  of  the  Church, 
whether  Bishop  Andrew  shall  continue  to  exercise  his  functions 
as  a  general  superintendent  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
while  he  sustains  the  relation  to  slavery  as  stated  in  his  com- 

*  There  is  certainly  something  remarkable  in  the  manner  in  which  this  argu- 
ment of  general  superinteiidency — the  sole  basis  of  the  action  against  Bishop 
Andrew — was  used  on  that  occasion.  A  general  superintendency  does  not 
imply  a  universal  superintendency,  extending  to  every  part.  A  learned  writer 
says,  "The  general  is  to  the  universal  wliat  a  partis  to  the  whole.  The  general 
rule  admits  many  exceptions,  ihe  U7iiversal  rule,  admits  of  none."  (Eng.  Synony- 
mes.)  General  in  this  case  is  placed  in  opposition  to  local— ^diocesan.  At  the 
time  the  rule  was  adopted,  there  were  seven  Conferences,  and  it  was  proposed  to 
have  a  Bishop  for  each  Conference.  7'liis  rule  was  intended  to  put  down  and 
keep  down  this  project  of  local,  Conference  Bishops,  and  to  provide  that  a  Bishop 
should  be  limited  to  no  particular  Conference  or  work.  But  further,  Southern 
brethren  met  this  popular  and  successful  argument,  by  saying  to  the  majority, 
"If  you  depose  Bishop  Andrew — directly  or  indirectly — you  will  not  fill  his 
place,  thus  vacated,  with  a  Southern  man ;  for  if  he  only  voted  to  sustain  the 
Bishop,  he  would  be  as  unacceptable  at  the  North  as  the  Bishop  himself;  and 
if  you  fill  his  place  with  one  who  takes  part  against  him,  he  cannot  be  a  general 
superintendent  in  your  sense,  because  he  will  be  as  unacceptable  to  the  South  as 
Bishop  Andrew  can  be  to  the  North."  The  majority,  however,  seemed  to  see  no 
force  at  all  in  the  argument,  but  passed  the  resolution,  and  then  filled  the  episco- 
pal chair  with  the  man  who  had  been  more  ultra  in  his  opposition  to  Bishop 
Andrew,  and  sustained  his  opposition  by  more  daring  departures  from  the  settled 
principles  of  Methodism,  than  any  other  man  in  the  Conference.  Of  course,  in 
their  sense  of  the  term,  he  could  not  be  a  general  superintendent,  for  he  could 
not  preside  in  the  Southern  Conferences  at  all;  and  when  elected,  it  must  have 
be«n  well  known  to  all,  that  his  course  against  Bishop  Andrew  would  render  him  so 
utterly  unacceptable  in  the  South  as  to  render  liim  entirely  unavailable.  Here, 
by  their  own  action,  the  sole  objection  upon  which  they  relied  in  displacinif 
Bishop  Andrew  is  made  to  bear  with  its  utmost  force  against  the  newincumben'.. 

6 


62  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

munication  to  the  Conference,  as  reported  to  the  Conference  by 
the  Committee  on  Episcopacy." 

May  30th.  Dr.  Capers  addressed  the  Conference  at  length. 
He  said  Dr.  Durbin  seemed  deeply  to  deprecate  involving  the 
Church  in  the  North  in  the  evil  of  slavery  by  retaining  Bishop 
Andrew  in  the  episcopacy,  but  remarked  thatif  this  fact  would 
involve  the  North  in  the  evil  they  so  much  deprecated,  they 
were  already  so  involved  by  the  unity  of  the  Church  and  the 
ministry.  He  thanked  God  for  this  unity;  but  this  unity  stands 
not  alone  in  the  episcopacy.  We  have  not  only  one  episcopacy, 
but  one  ministry,  one  doctrine,  one  discipline;  we  were  one  in 
usage  North  and  South;  and  in  this  view  he  was  astonished  to 
hear  brethren  talk  of  Bishop  Andrew's  continuance  in  the 
episcopacy  as  extending  the  evils  of  slavery  over  the  Nortli. 
Not  one  more  slave  or  slaveholder  would  be  made  in  this  way. 
He  noticed  Dr.  Durbin's  statement  that  the  course  of  concession 
had  ever  been  from  the  North  to  the  South,  from  1784  down- 
ward. He  inquired  what  was  North  and  Avhat  vSouth  at  that 
date?  Dr.  Durbin  says  the  majority  was  then  in  the  South. 
But  where  was  that  South?  Methodism  had  not  penetrated 
into  Arkansas,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana;  Georgia,  or 
South  Carolina.  But  we  had  Maryland  and  Virginia  for 
the  South.  And  where  was  the  North?  Not  in  New  York; 
for  it  w^as  then  a  slaveholding  State.  Not  New  England;  for 
there  was  no  Methodism  there.  It  was  evident  that  the  brother 
had  presented  the  North  as  making  concessions  to  the  South, 
Avhen  no  such  distinction  obtained  in  the  Church,  for  all  were 
slaveholding  States.  He  alluded  to  the  doctrine  that  a  Bishop 
is  only  an  officer  of  the  General  Conference,  and  receives  his 
whole  authority  by  the  election  of  that  body,  and  none  by 
consecration,  and  to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Durbin  had  quoted  Dr.  Coke, 
Mr.  Asbury,  and  Mr.  Dickens,  in  support  of  this  position.  He 
said  the  authority  was  good,  if  the  object  had  been  to  prove 
(what  no  body  denied)  that  a  Bishop  was  amenable  to  the 
General  Conference,  and  might  be  removed  for  good  cause; 
'••  but  no  authority  of  Mr.  Asbury,  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Dickens,  or 
any  body  else — before  this  case  of  Bishop  Andrew's  caused  it 
to  be  asserted  on  this  floor — can  be  adduced  for  any  such  doc- 
trine." "A  Bishop  an  officer  of  the  General  Conference  merely! 
Then  were  it  both  untrue  and  blasphemous  to  invest  him  with 
the  office,  with  those  holy  words  of  the  consecration  service. 
'  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Bishop 
in  the  Church  of  God,  now. committed  to  thee  by  the  imposition 
of  our  hands,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Dr.  Capers  closed  by  a  powerful  appeal 
in  behalf  of  the  slaves  of  the  South,  from  which  we  make  the 
following  quotation: — 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  63 

"  I  beseech  brethren,  to  allow  due  weight  to  the  considera- 
tions which  have  been  so  kindly  and  ably  urged  by  others  on 
this  branch  of  the  subject.  I  contemplate  it,  I  confess,  with  a. 
bleeding  heart.  Never,  never  have  I  sutiered  as  in  view  of 
the  evil  which  this  measm-e  threatens  against  the  South.  TIk^ 
agitation  has  already  begun;  and  I  tell  you  that  though  our 
hearts  were  to  be  torn  out  of  our  bodies,  it  could  avail  nothing, 
when  once  you  awaken  the  feeling  that  ^ve  cannot  be  trusted 
among  the  slaves.  Once  you  have  done  this  thing,  you  have 
effectually  destroyed  us.  I  could  wish  to  die  sooner  than  live 
to  see  such  a  day.  As  sure  as  you  live,  brethren,  there  are 
tens  of  thousands,  nay  hundreds  of  thousands,  whose  destiny 
may  be  periled  by  your  decision  on  this  case.  When  we  tell 
you  that  we  preach  to  a  hundred  thousand  slaves  on  our  mis- 
sionary fields,  we  only  announce  the  beginning  of  our  "work,— 
the  beginning  openings  of  the  door  of  access  to  the  most 
numerous  masses  of  slaves  in  the  South.  When  we  add,  that 
there  are  two  hundred  thousand  now  within  our  reach  who  have 
no  gospel  unless  we  give  it  to  them,  it  is  still  but  the  same  an- 
nouncement of  the  beginnings  of  the  opening  of  that  wdde  and 
effectual  door,  which  was  so  long  closed,  and  so  lately  has  begun 
to  be  opened,  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  by  our  ministry,  to 
a  numerous  and  destitute  portion  of  the  people.  O,  close  not 
this  door!  Shut  us  not  out  from  this  great  work,  to  which  we 
have  been  so  signally  called  of  God.  Consider  our  position.  1 
pray  you,  I  beseech  3'ou  by  every  sacred  consideration,  pause  in 
this  matter.  Do  not  talk  about  concessions  to  the  South.  We 
ask  for  no  concessions, — no  compromises.  Do  with  us  as  you 
please,  but  spare  the  souls  for  whom  .Tesus  died.  If  you  deem 
om-  toils  too  light,  and  that  after  all,  there  is  more  of  rhetoric 
than  cross-bearing  in  our  labors,  come  down  and  take  a  part 
with  us.  Let  this  be  the  compromise,  if  we  have  any.  1 
could  almost  promise  my  vote  to  make  the  elder  a  Bishop  who 
should  give  such  a  proof  as  this  of  his  devotion  to, — 1  will  not 
say  the  emancipation  of  the  negro  race,  but  what  is  better, — 
what  is  more  constitutional  and  more  Christian, — the  salvation 
of  the  souls  of  the  negroes  on  om-  great  Southern  plantations. 
Concessions!  We  ask  for  none.  So  far  from  it,  we  are  ready  to 
make  any  in  our  power  to  you.  We  come  to  jou  not  for  oui-- 
selves,  but  for  perishing  souls;  and  we  entreat  you  for  Christ's 
sake,  not  to  take  away  from  them  the  bread  of  life,  which  we 
are  just  now  beginning  to  carry  them.  We  beg  for  this — I 
must  repeat  it — with  bleeding  hearts.  Yes,  I  feel  intensely  on 
this  subject.  The  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  offence,  of 
former  times,  when  George  Daugherty,  a  Southern  man,  and 
a  Southern  minister,  and  one  of  the  wisest  and  best  that  (uer 
graced  our  ministry,  was  dragged  to  the  pump  in  Charleston, 


04  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

and  his  life  rescued  by  a  sword  in  a  woman's  hand, — the  offence 
of  the  anti-slavery  measures  of  that  day  has  but  lately  begun 
to  subside.  I  cannot,  I  say,  forget  past  times,  and  the  evil  of 
them,  when  in  those  parts  of  my  own  State  of  South  Carolina, 
where  slaves  are  most  numerous,  there  was  little  more  charity 
for  Methodist  preachers  than  if  they  had  been  Mormons,  and 
their  access  to  the  negroes  was  looked' upon  as  dangerous  to 
the  public  peace.  Bring  not  back  upon  us  the  evil  of  those 
hitter  days.         *         *         #         *         *         *         *         *         * 

"  Life  or  death,  we  will  never  desert  that  Christian  work  to 
which  we  know  God  has  called  us.  We  ask  to  be  spared  no 
trial;  but  that  the  way  of  trials  may  be  kept  open  for  us.  We 
a.sk  to  be  spared  no  labor,  but  that  we  may  be  permitted  to 
labor  on,  and  still  more  abundantly.  Add,  if  you  please,  to 
the  amount  of  our  toils.  Pile  labor  on  labor  more  and  more. 
Demand  of  us  still  more  brick;  or  even  the  full  tale  of  brick 
without  staw  or  stubble;  but  cut  us  not  off  from  the  clay  also. 
Cut  us  not  off  from  the  slaves  of  the  South,  when  (to  say  no- 
thing of  "  concessions  to  the  South,")  you  shall  have  finished 
the  measure  of  your  demands  for  the  North." 

Dr.  Peck  suggested  the  propriety  of  bringing  the  debate  to  a 
close,  and  Bishop  Andrew  begged  that  the  question  might  be 
taken  without  further  delay. 

"  A  motion  for  the  previous  question  having  failed.  Bishop 
Hedding  requested  that  the  Conference  might  not  hold  an 
afternoon  session,  as  the  Bishops  wished  an  opportunity  to 
consult  together,  with  a  view  to  fixing  on  a  compromise.  With 
this  view,  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  deferred  until  the 
next  day. 

May  31st.  Bishop  Waugh  read  the  following  Address  of 
the  Bishops: — 

To  tJic  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 

Reverend  and  Dear  Brethren, — The  undersigned  respectfully 
and  affectionately  offer  to  yom*  calm  consideration  the  result  of 
their  consultation  this  afternoon  in  regard  to  the  unpleasant 
and  very  delicate  question  which  has  been  so  long  and  so  ear- 
nestly debated  before  yom-  body.  They  have,  with  the  liveliest 
interest,  watched  the  progress  of  your  discussion,  and  have 
awaited  its  termination  with  the  deepest  solicitude.  As  they 
have  pored  over  this  subject  with  anxious  thought,  by  day  and 
by  night,  they  have  been  more  and  more  impressed  with  the 
difficulties  connected  therewith,  and  the  disastrous  results 
which,  in  their  apprehension,  are  the  almost  inevitable  conse- 
quences of  the  present  action  on  the  question  now  pending 
before  you.  To  the  undersigned  it  is  fully  apparent  that  a 
decision  thereon,  whether   affirmatively  or  negatively,  will 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  G5 

most  extensively  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  of  that  widely 
extended  brotherhood  which  has  so  etlectively  operated  lor 
good  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  elsewhere,  during 
tJie  last  sixty  years,  in  the  development  of  a  system  of  active 
energy,  of  which  union  has  always  been  a  main  element. 
They  have  Math  deep  emotion,  inquired,  Can  any  thing  be 
done  to  avoid  an  evil  so  much  deprecated  by  every  friend  ol' 
our  common  Methodism?  Long  and  anxiously  have  they 
awaited  for  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry,  but  they  haw. 
paused  in  vain.  At  this  painful  crisis,  they  have  unanimously 
concurred  in  the  propriety  of  recommending  the  postponement 
of  further  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  until  the  ensuing 
General  Conference.  It  does  not  enter  into  the  design  of  the 
undersigned  to  argue  the  propriety  of  their  recommendation, 
otherwise  strong  and  valicl  reasons  might  be  adduced  in  its 
support.  They  cannot  but  think  that  if  the  embarrassment  of 
Bishop  Andrew  should  not  cease  before  that  time,  the  next 
General  Conference,  representing  the  pastors,  ministers,  and 
people  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  after  all  the  facts  in 
the  case  shall  have  passed  in  review  before  them,  ^vill  be 
better  qualitied  than  the  present  General  Conference  can  be 
to  adjudicate  the  case  Avisely  and  discreetly.  Until  the  cessa- 
tion of  the  embarrassment,  or  the  expiration  of  the  interval 
between  the  present  and  ensuing  General  Conference,  the 
undersigned  believe  that  such  a  division  of  the  work  of  the 
general  superintendency  might  be  made  without  any  infraction 
of  a  constitutional  principle,  as  would  tully  employ  Bishop 
Andrew  in  those  sections  of  the  Church  in  v\  hich  his  presence 
and  services  would  be  welcome  and  cordial.  If  the  coursi^ 
pursued  on  the  present  occasion  by  the  undersigned  be  deemed 
novel,  they  persuade  themselves  that  their  justitication,  in 
view  of  all  candid  and  peace-loving  persons,  will  be  found  in 
their  strong  desire  to  prevent  disunion,  and  to  promote  harmony 
in  the  Chui-ch. 

Very  respectfully  and  aflectionately  submitted, 

Joshua  Soule, 
Elijah   Hedding, 

B.    WAU(iH, 

T.  A.  Morris. 

Mr.  Collins  moved  to  adopt  the  suggestion.  Mr.  Mitcliell 
proposed  that  it  lie  on  the  table  one  day,  which  JNIr.  Collins 
assented  to  and  j\Ir.  Havens  opposed. 

Dr.  Bangs  proposed  its  reference  to  a  committee,  which  ]Mr. 
Ilamline  and  Dr._01in  approved,  and  Mr.  Collins  and  jMi'. 
8licer  opposed. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Peck  "  thought  the  darkness  Avas  increased,  and  the 
Conference  deeper  in  the  mire  than  ever."     lie  thought  the 


6Q  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OP  TUB 

Bishops'  proposition  was  in  effect  that  they  should  frankly 
confess  that  all  they  had  said  on  the  subject  was  wrong,  give 
up  all  they  had  proposed  to  do,  and  leave  the  thing  to  the  ope- 
ration of  time,  when  they  had  ah'eady  refused  to  do  so. 

The  case  was  laid  over  until  the  following  day;  and  in  the 
mean  time  it  became  quite  obvious  that  Mr.  Peck  was  not  alone 
in  his  feelings  of  ultraism,  which  so  promptly  rejected  the 
proposition  of  the  Bishops,  with  something  nearly  allied  to 
indignation.  In  view  of  the  temper  referred  to,  the  Bishops 
thought  it  expedient,  after  the  meeting  of  the  Conference,  the 
next  morning,  to  define  their  position  with  respect  to  that  paper. 

Bishop  Hedding  "  wished  to  withdraw  his  signature  from  the 
document  presented  yesterday.  He  had  not  been  drawn  or 
persuaded  into  it.  But  in  signing  it  he  had  been  governed  by 
two  reasons  which  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  present.  First,  he 
signed  it  as  a  peace  measure.  Second,  he  believed  it  would 
be  generally  acceptable  to  the  Conference.  In  both  these 
expectations  he  was  disappointed.  Facts  had  come  to  his 
knowledge  which  induced  him  to  believe  it  would  not  make 
peace,  and  that  it  might  be  productive  of  a  lengthened  debate, 
and,  instead  of  removing,  would  only  increase  the  difficulty. 
He  therefore  wished  his  name  to  be  withdrawn,  but  would 
submit  if  the  Conference  decided  that  he  had  no  authority  to 
do  so."     No  objection  was  made. 

Bishop  Waugh  said  "  that  in  regard  to  the  same  document  a 
few  remarks  might  not  be  unnecessary.  He  wished  his  name 
to  remain,  unless  he  saw  other  reasons  than  had  yet  appeared. 
He  came  into  the  measure  without  persuasion  or  entreaty,  as 
the  result  of  his  own  thoughts  and  voluntary  inclination,  though 
slowly  and  reluctantly.  Yet  it  was  under  a  train  of  circum- 
stances that  left  him  little  or  no  option  in  the  premises.  He 
adopted  it  as  a  last  resort,  and  \\ath  but  little  hope  of  success. 
It  did,  however,  appear  to  him  that  it  would  be  better  to  put 
that  view  before  the  General  Conference,  and  let  it  take  its 
course,  and  so  far  as  himself  was  concerned,  he  should  be 
perfectly  satisfied  with  the  result.  He  should  exceedingly 
regret  if  the  communication  were  the  occasion  of  a  protracted 
debate,  but  he  hoped  that  would  not  be  the  case.  He  did  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  withdraw  his  name  from  a  paper  that  he 
designed  to  be  for  the  preservation  of  the  Church." 

Bishop  Morris  "wished  his  name  to  remain  attached  to  that 
document,  as  a  testimony  that  he  had  done  what  he  could  to 
preserve  the  unity  of  the  body." 

Bishop  Soule  said,  "  perhaps  he  ought  to  offer  a  few  words  in 
connection  with  his  colleagues,  and  it  afforded  him  pleasure 
to  receive  the  assurances  that  they  were  in  no  way  influenced 
or  persuaded  to  put  their  signatures  to  that  paper.     He  ac- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  67 

knowledged  that  they  went  into  the  measure  as  freely  and 
fully,  and  under  the  same  conviction,  as  himself.  Conference 
were  aware  that  this  matter  came  before  the  superintendents 
on  motion.  He  put  his  signature  to  the  document  with  the 
same  views  and  under  the  same  convictions  as  his  very  worthy 
colleagues  did,  and  neither  his  views  nor  his  convictions  were 
changed  in  any  way.  And  he  wished  his  signature  to  that 
document  to  go  forth  through  a  thousand  channels  to  the 
world.  It  is  already  before  the  American  people,  and  I  may 
not  and  will  not,  withdraw  it." 

The  communication  of  the  Bishops  was  taken  up.  Dr. 
Bangs  moved  to  lay  it  on  the  table,  and  said  he  had  used  every 
effort  in  his  power  to  effect  a  compromise,  but  from  Avhat  had 
been  told  him  by  members  from  the  North  and  South,  not  a 
vestige  of  this  hope  remained. 

Dr.  Winans  said  that  the  remark  of  Dr.  Bangs  might  imply 
tliat  the  South  were  opposed  to  the  proposition  of  the  Bishops. 
This  was  not  the  case,  for  the  Southern  delegates  were  of  one 
mind  to  entertain  the  proposition  of  compromise  offered  by  the 
BLshops. 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  M^as  intended  as  a  final  rejec- 
tion of  the  Bishops'  proposition,  and  the  vote  on  that  motion 
was  taken  by  ayes  and  noes.  We  give  the  vote  as  one  of 
interest  in  the  history  of  the  case,  especially  as  it  has  since 
then  been  strangely  asserted  that  the  Bishops'  compromise  was 
rejected  by  the  South.  It  is  therefore  proper  that  those  who 
voted  for  and  against  that  compromise  should  be  known.  The 
following  is  the  vote: — 

Yeas.  Ncid  York  Conference — Bangs,  Rice,  G.  Peck,  Stratten, 
Sandford,  F.  Reed,  Ferguson,  Martindale,  Richardson.  Provi- 
d-ence — Lovejoy,  Upham,  Benton,  Townsend.  Neu)  England — 
J.  Porter,  King,  Crandall,  C.  Adams,  Pickering.  Maine — Hill, 
E.  Robinson,  Randall,  Morse,  Hobart,  Nickerson,  Webber. 
New  Hampshire — E.  Scott,  Chamberlin,  Kelly,  Perkins,  Dow, 
Spaulding,  Gaboon,  Cass.  Trc>^— Seymour,  Wever,  Coleman, 
Spicer,  Covel,  Houghtaling,  J.  T.  Peck.  Black  River — -A.  D. 
Peck,  A.  Adams,  Baker,  Ninde.  Oneida — Snyder,  Comfort, 
Rounds,  Shepherd,  Row,  Bowen,  Holmes.  Genesee — Filmore, 
Lucky,  Steele,  Abell,  Hosmer.  Ei-ic — Steadman,  Bain,  Clarke, 
J.  Robinson,  Goodwin.  Pittsburg — W.  Hunter,  H.  J.  Clark, 
Spencer,  S.  Elliott,  Boyd,  Wakefield,  Drummond.  Ohio — C. 
Elliott,  Raper,  Trimble,  Finley,  HamHne,  Connell,  Ferree. 
Nortit  Ohio — E.  Thompson,  Power,  Poe,  Yocum,  Runnells. 
Michigan — Crane,  Billings,  Baughman.  Indiana — Simpson, 
Wiley,  Ames,  Miller,  Wood,  Eddy.  Rock  River — Mitchell. 
Illinois — Akers,  Cartwright.  Baltimore — Griffith.  Ncui  Jersey 
— Shaw,  Winner — 95. 


68  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

Nays.  New  York  Conference— 0\\n,  Carpenter.  Genesee — • 
Hibbard,  Seager,  Alverson.  Ohio — Sehon.  Michipan — G. 
Smi th .  Indiana — Ruter,  H avens .  Bock  River — Weed ,  Sinclair, 
11.  W.  Reed.  Illinois — Stamper,  Vancleve,  N.  G.  Berryman, 
Missouri — Redman,  W.  Patton,  J.  C.  Berryman,  J.  M.  Jameson. 
Kentucky — Bascom,  Gunn,  Kavanaiigh,  Stevenson,  Crouch, 
Brush.  Holston — Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  Stringfield.  Tennessee 
— 'R.  Paine,  McFerrin,  Green,  Maddin.  Memphis— Yi^vria, 
Mood}^,  McMahon,  Joyner.     Arkansas — J.  C.  Parker,  Ratchffe, 

A.  Hunter.  Texas — ^Fowler,  J.  Claijke.  Mississippi — Winans, 
Drake,  Lane,  Rogers.  Alabama — Murrah,  Boring,  Garrett, 
Hamilton.  Georgia — L.  Pierce,  G.  F.  Pierce,  Parks,  Glenn, 
Evans,  Longstreet.  South  Carolina — Capers,  Wiglltman,  Betts, 
Dunwody,  Walker.  North  Carolina — J.  Jamieson, Doub,  Blake. 
Virginia — ^Early,  Lee,  W.  A.  Smith,  Crowder.  Baltimore— 
Slicer,  Bear,  Morgan,  Tippett,  Sargent,  Collins,  Gere,  Hildt. 
PhiladeljMa — Durbin,  T.  J.  Thompson,  White,  L.  Scott,  W. 
Cooper,  L  T.  Cooper.  Neio  Jersey — J.  S.  Porter,  Neal,  Sover- 
eign—84. 

The  Bishops'  compromise  was  therefore  laid  on  the  table,  or 
rejected,  and  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Finley  again  taken  up,  and 
carried  by  a  vote  of  111  to  69.  The  ayes  and  noes  on  the  final 
vote  stood  as  follows: — 

Yeas.  New  York  Conference — Nathan  Bangs,  Stephen  Olin', 
Phineas  Rice,  George  Peck,  John  B.  Stratten,  Peter  P.  Sand- 
ford,  Fitch  Reed,  Samuel  D.  Ferguson,  Stephen  Martindale, 
Marvin  Richardson.  Troy — Truman  Seymour,  John  M.  W^ever, 
James  Covel,  jun.,   Tobias  Spicer,  Seymour  Coleman,  James 

B.  Houghtaling,  Jesse  T.  Peck.  Providence — J.  Lovejoy,  F. 
Upham,  S.  Benton,  Paul  Townsend.  New  Hampshire — Elihu 
Scott,  J.  Perkins,  Samuel  Kelley,  S.  Chamberlain,  John  G.  Dow, 
J.  Spaulding,  C.  D.  Cahoon,  William  D.  Cass.  New  England 
— J.  Porter,  D.  S.  King,  P.  Crandall,  C.  Adams,  G.  Pickering. 
Pittsburg — WilUam  Hunter,  H.  J.  Clark,  J.  Spencer,  S.Elliott, 
R.  Boyd,  S.  Wal^efield,  J.  Drummond.  Maine— U.  Hill,  E. 
Robinson,  D.  B.  Randall,  C.  W.  Morse,  J.  Hobart,  Heman 
Nickerson,  G.Webber.  Black  River — A.  D.  Peck,  A.  Adams, 
G.  Baker,  W.  W.  Ninde.  Erie — J.  J.  Steadman,  John  Bain, 
G.  W.  Clarke,  J.  Robinson,  T.  Goodwin.  Oneida — J.  M.  Sny- 
der, S.  Comfort,  N.  Rounds,  D.  A.  Shepherd,  H,  F.  Row,  E. 
Bowen,  D.  Holmes,  jun.  Michigan — E.  Crane,  A.  Bilhngs,  J. 
A.  Baughman.  Rock  River— B.  W^eed,  H.  W.  Reed,  J.  T. 
Mitchell.  Genesee — G.  Filmore,  S.  Luckey,  A.  Steele,  F.  G. 
Hibbard,  S.  Seager,  A.  Abell,  W.  Hosmer,  J.  B.  Alverson. 
North  Ohio — E.  Thompson,  J.  H.  Power,  A.  Poe,  E.  Yocum, 
W.  Runnells.  Illinois — P.  Akers,  P.  Cartwright.  Ohio — C. 
ElUott,  William  IL  Raper,  J.  M.  Trimble,  J.  B.  Finley,  L.  L. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  69 

Hamline,  Z.  Connell,  J.  Ferree.  Indiana — M.  Simpson,  A. 
Wiley,  E.  R.  Ames,  J.  Miller,  C.  W.  Ruter,  A.  Wood,  A.  Eddy, 
J.  Havens.  Texas — J.  Clark.  Baltimore — J.  A.  Collins,  A. 
Griffith,  J.  Bear,  N.  J.  B.  Morgan,  J.  Davis.  Philadelphia — J. 
P.  Durbin,  L.  Scott.  New  Jersey — ^I.  Winner,  J.  S.  Porter,  J. 
K.  Shaw^ — 111. 

Nays.  New  York  Conference — C.  W.  Carpenter.  Michigan 
Smith.  Rock  River — J.  Sinclair.  Illinois — J.  Stamper, 
J.  Van  Cleve,  N.  G.  Berryman.  Kentucky — H.  B.  Bascom,W. 
Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  E.  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W. 
Brush,  Ohio — E.  W.  Sehon.  Holston — E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patten, 
T.  Stringfield.  Tennessee — R.  Paine,  J.  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P. 
Green,  T.  Maddin.  Missouri— \N .  W.  Redman,  W.  Patten,  J. 
C.  Berryman,  J.  M.  Jameson.  North  Carolina — J.  Jamieson, 
Peter  Doub,  B.  T.  Blake.  Memphis— G.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S. 
Moody,  William  M'Mahon,  T.  Joyner.  Arkansas — .J.  C.  Parker, 
W.  P.  Ratclifle,  A.  Hunter.  Virginia — J.  Early,  T.  Crowder, 
W.  A.  Smith,  L.  M.  Lee.  Mississippi — William  Winans,  B. 
M.  Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers.  Texas — L.  Fowler.  Ala- 
bama— J.  Boring,  J.  Hamilton,  William  Mm-rah,  G.  Garrett. 
Georgia — G.  F.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks,  L.  Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J. 
E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet.  South  Carolina — William  Capers, 
W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker. 
Baltimore — H.  Slicef,  J.  A.  C^ere,  T.  B.  Sargent,  C.  B.  Tippett, 
G.  Hildt.  Philcidelphia—T .  J.  Thompson,  H.  White,  W.  Cooper, 
L  T.  Cooper.  New  Jersey — Thomas  Neal,  Thomas  Sover- 
eign— 69. 

Dr.  L.  Pierce  gave  notice  that  the  Southern  delegates  would, 
at  their  earliest  convenience,  present  their  protest  against  the 
action  of  tlie  Conference  in  this  case,  to  be  entered  on  the 
journal. 

June  3rd.  The  following  resolutions  were  offered  by  Mr. 
Sheer  and  Mr.  Sargent,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference: — 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference, 
that  the  vote  of  Saturday  last  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew 
be  understood  as  advisory  only,  and  not  in  the  light  of  a  judi- 
cial mandate. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  final  disposition  of  Bishop  Andrew's 
case  be  postponed  until  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  in 
conformity  with  the  suggestion  of  the  Bishops  in  their  address 
to  the  Conference  on  Friday,  May  31st. 

"  H.  Slicer, 

"  T.  B.  Sargent." 

These  resolutions  were  laid  on  the  table  by  ayes  75,  noes  68; 
the  North,  with  individual  exceptions,  voting  for  laying  on  the 
taJale,  and  the  South  unanimously  against  it. 


70  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

The  following  series  of  resolutions  were  offered  by  Dr. 
Capers: — 

"Be  it  resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Conferences 
in  General  Conference  assembled,  That  we  recommend  to  the 
Annual  Conferences,  to  suspend  the  constitutional  restrictions 
which  limit  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference,  so  far,  and 
only  so  far,  as  to  allow  of  the  following  alterations  in  the 
government  of  the  Church,  viz.: — 

"  1.  That  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  these  United 
States  and  Territories,  and  the  republic  of  Texas,  shall  consti- 
tute two  General  Conferences,  to  meet  quadrennially,  the  one 
at  some  place  South,  and  the  other  North  of  the  line  which  now 
divides  between  the  States  commonly  designated  as  free  States, 
and  those  in  which  slavery  exists. 

"2.  That  each  one  of  the  two  General  Conferences  thus 
constituted,  shall  have  full  powers,  (under  the  limitations  and 
restrictions  which  are  now  of  force  and  binding  on  the  General 
Conference,)  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Chm-ch, 
within  their  limits,  respectively,  and  to  elect  Bishops  for  the 
same. 

"  3.  That  the  two  General  Conferences,  aforesaid,  shall  sev- 
erally have  jurisdiction,  as  follows: — The  Southern  General 
Conference  shall  comprehend  the  States  of  Virginia,  Kentucky, 
and  Missouri,  and  the  States  and  Territories  lying  southwardly 
thereto,  and  also  the  republic  of  Texas;  to  be  known  and 
designated  by  the  title  of  the  '  Southern  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.'  And 
tlie  Northern  General  Conference,  to  comprehend  all  those 
States  and  Territories  lying  North  of  the  States  of  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  as  above  mentioned,  and  to  be  known 
and  designated  by  the  title  of  the  'Northern  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.' 

"4.  And  be  it  further  resolved.  That  as  soon  as  three  fourths 
of  all  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  voting  on  these 
resolutions  shall  approve  the  same,  the  said  Southern  and 
Northern  General  Conferences  shall  be  deemed  as  having 
been  constituted  by  such  approval;  and  it  shall  be  competent 
for  the  Southern  Annual  Conferences  to  elect  delegates  to  said 
General  Conference,  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Nashville,  Tenn., 
on  the  1st  day  of  May,  1848,  or  sooner,  if  a  majority  of  two 
thirds  of  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  composing 
that  General  Conference  shall  desire  the  same. 

"5.  And  be  it  further  resolved,  as  aforesaid,  That  the  Book 
Concerns  at  New  York  and  Cincinnati,  shall  be  held  and 
conducted  as  the  property,  and  for  the  benefit,  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences,  as  heretofore: — the  editors  and  agents  to  be  elected 
once  in  four  years,  at  the  time  of  the  session  of  the  Northern 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  71 

General  Conference;  and  the  votes  of  the  Southern  General 
Conference  to  be  cast  by  delegates  of  that  Conference  attend- 
ing the  Northern  for  that  purpose. 

"  6.  And  be  it  farther  resolved,  That  our  Church  organiza- 
tion for  foreign  missions  shall  be  maintained  and  conducted 
jointly  between  the  two  General  Conferences,  as  one  Church, 
in  such  manner  as  shall  be  agreed  upon  from  time  to  time  be- 
tween the  two  great  branches  of  the  Chm'ch  as  represented 
in  the  said  two  Conferences." 

The  resolutions  were,  on  motion  of  Dr.  Bangs,  referred  to 
a  select  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Capers,  Winans, 
Crowder,  Porter,  Filmore,  Akers,  Hamline,  Davis  and  Sandford. 

June  5th.  Dr.  Capers,  from  the  above  committee,  reported 
that  "  they  could  not  agree  on  a  report  which  they  judged 
would  be  acceptable  to  the  Conference." 

Dr.  Longstreet,  in  behalf  of  the  Southern  and  South-western 
Conferences,  presented  the  following  Declaration: — 

"  The  delegates  of  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  take  leave  to  declare  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  the  continued  agitation  of 
the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church, 
— the  frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Conference, 
—and  especially  the  extra-judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop 
Andrew,  which  resulted,  on  Saturday  last,  in  the  virtual 
suspension  of  him  from  his  office  as  superintendent, — must 
produce  a  state  of  things  in  the  South  which  renders  a  continu- 
ance of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  General  Conference  over  these 
Conferences  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the 
slaveholding  States.     (Signed,) 

"  Virginia  Conference. — John  Early,  W.  A.  Smith,  Thoma.^ 
Crowder,  Leroy  M.  Lee. 

^'■Kentucky. — H.  B.  Bascom,  William  Gunn,  II.  II.  Kava- 
naugh,  Edward  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush. 

"  Missouri. — W.  W.  Redman,  William  Patton,  J.  C.  Berry- 
man,  J.  M.  Jameson. 

''Holston.—E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  Thomas  Stringfield. 

"  Georgia.— G.  F.  Pierce,  Wilham  J.  Parks,  L.  Pierce,  J.  W. 
Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet. 

"  No7-th  Carolina. — James  Jamieson,  Peter  Doub,  B.  T.  Blake. 

^^  Illinois. — J.  Stamper. 

"  Memphis.— G.  W.  D.  Harris,  Wm.  McMahon,  Thomas  Joy- 
ner,  S.  S.  Moody. 

''Arkansas. — John  C.  Parker,  William  P.  Ratcliife,  Andrew 
Hunter. 

"  Mississippi. — Wm.  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  .John  Lane,  G.  M. 
Rogers. 

"  Texas. — Littleton  Fowler. 


72  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

"  Alabama. — Jesse  Boring,  Jefferson  Hamilton,  W.  Murrah, 
G.  Garrett. 

"  Tennessee. — Robert  Paine,  John  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green, 
T.  Maddin. 

"  South  Carolina. — William  Capers,  William  M.  Wightman, 
Charles  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker." 

After  the  reading  of  the  paper,  Dr.  Elliott  proposed  its  refer- 
ence to  a  committee  of  nine. 

Mr.  Sandford  said  the  declaration  charged  extra-judicial  action 
on  the  Conference;  this  he  considered  untrue,  and  an  insult  to 
the  Conference,  and  that  therefore  the  paper  ought  not  to  be 
entertained. 

Dr.  Longstreet  explained  the  meaning  of  extra-judicial  pro- 
ceedings, and  showed  that  the  action  in  this  case  was  truly  of 
that  character,  and  nothing  in  the  nature  of  insult  was  intended 
or  legitimately  embraced  in  the  paper.  The  Southern  dele- 
gates simply  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  was  no  longer 
desirable  that  that  General  Conference  should  have  ju7isdiction 
over  them. 

Dr.  Olin  spoke  of  the  action  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  and 
said,  had  he  regarded  it  as  judicicd  or  punitive,  he  would  not 
have  voted  for  it.  He  said  he  would  embody  his  sentiments  in 
the  form  of  resolutions,  and  submitted  the  following,  upon  which 
however  no  action  was  taken: — 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  does  not  consider  its  action 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  as  either  judicial  or  punitive, 
but  as  a  prudential  regulation  for  the  security  and  welfare  of 
the  Church. 

"  Resolved,  That  having  made  a  solemn  declaration  of  what, 
in  their  judgment,  the  safety  and  peace  of  the  Church  require, 
it  is  not  necessary  or  proper  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  what 
amount  of  respect  may  justly  belong  to  their  action  in  the 
premises." 

The  Declaration  was  then  referred  to  a  committee,  agreeably 
to  Dr.  Elliott's  proposition,  and  Messrs.  Paine,  Filmore,  Akers, 
Bangs,  Crowder,  Sargent,  Winans,  Hamline,  and  Porter,  were 
appointed  that  committee. 

The  following  resolution  of  instruction  to  the  committee  was 
adopted: — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  communication  of  the  delegates  from  the 
Southern  Conferences  be  instructed,  provided  they  cannot  in 
their  judgment  devise  a  plan  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of 
the  difficulties  now  existing  in  the  Chm-ch,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a  constitutional  plan  for  a  mutual 
and  friendly  division  of  the  Church.  "  J.  B.  McFerrin, 

*'  Tobias  Spicer." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  73 

Some  of  the  Southern  brethren  fearing  the  question  of 
jurisdictional  division  might  be  embarrassed,  if  not  defeated, 
by  the  introduction  of  constitutional  scruples,  it  was  moved  by 
Mr.  Crowder,  of  Virginia,  to  amend  the  instruction  by  striking 
out  of  it  the  word  "  constitutional.;''''  but  the  Conference  resolved 
to  have  a  constitutional  division,  or  none,  and  accordingly  refused 
to  amend  as  proposed,  but  passed  the  instruction  as  originally 
offered.  So  the  committee  were  instructed  to  confine  their 
action  to  constitutional  principles. 

June  Cth.  The  Protest  of  the  Southern  delegates  against 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  was  introduced  and  read  by  Dr.  Bascom,  as  follows: — 


"In  behalf  of  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  portions  of  the  ministry  and  member- 
ship of  several  other  Conferences,  embracing  nearly  five 
thousand  ministers,  traveling  and  local,  and  a  membership  of 
nearly  five  hundred  thousand,  constitutionally  represented  in 
this  General  Conference,  we  the  undersigned,  a  minority  of 
the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  in  General 
Conference  assembled,  after  mature  reflection,  impelled  by 
convictions  we  cannot  resist,  and  in  conformity  with  the  rights 
and  usages  of  minorities,  in  the  instance  of  deliberative  assem- 
blies and  judicial  tribunals,  in  similar  circumstances  of  division 
and  disagreement.  Do  7nost  solemnly^  and  in  due  form,  protest 
against  the  recent  act  of  a  majority  of  this  General  Conference, 
in  an  attempt,  as  understood  by  the  minority,  to  degrade  and 
punish  the  Rev.  .lames  O.  Andrew,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Chm'ch,  by  declaring  it  to  be  the  sense  or 
judgment  of  the  General  Conference  that  he  desist  from  the 
exercise  of  his  episcopal  functions,  without  the  exhibition  of  any 
alleged  oflence  against  the  laws  or  discipline  of  the  Church, 
without  form  of  trial,  or  legal  conviction  of  any  kind,  and  in 
the  absence  of  any  charge  of  want  of  qualification  or  faith- 
fulness in  the  performance  of  the  duties  pertaining  to  his  ofiice. 

"We  protest  against  the  act  of  the  majority  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  as  extra-judicial  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
being  both  without  law  and  contrary  to  law.  We  pi-otcst 
against  the  act  because  we  recognize  in  this  General  Confer- 
ence no  right,  power,  or  authority,  ministerial,  judicial  or 
administrative,  to  suspend  or  depose  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  or  otherwise  subject  him  to  any  official  disa- 
bility whatever,  without  the  formal  presentation  of  a  charge 
or  charges,  alleging  that  the  Bishop  to  be  dealt  with  has  been 
guilty  of  the  violation  of  some  law,  or  at  least  some  disciplinary 
obligation  of  the  Chm-ch,  and  also  upon  conviction  of  such 

7 


74  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

charge  after  due  form  of  trial.  We  protest  against  the  act  in 
question  as  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  law,  usually  known 
as  the  compromise  law  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
— the  only  law  which  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  and  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  which, 
until  it  is  constitutionally  revoked,  is  guarantied  by  the  honor 
and  good  faith  of  this  body,  as  the  representative  assembly  of 
the  thirty-three  Annual  Conferences  known  as  contracting 
parties  in  the  premises. 

"  A?id  we  protest  against  the  act  further,  as  an  attempt  to 
establish  a  dangerous  precedent,  subversive  of  the  union  and 
stability  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  especially  as 
placing  in  jeopardy  the  general  superintendency  of  the  Church, 
by  subjecting  any  Bishop  of  the  Church  at  any  time  to  the  will 
and  caprice  of  a  majority  of  the  CTcneral  Conference,  not  only 
without  law,  but  in  defiance  of  the  restraints  and  provisions  of 
law.  The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  General  Conference, 
in  protesting,  as  they  do,  against  the  late  act  of  the  majority, 
in  the  virtual  suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew,  regard  it  as  due 
to  themselves  and  those  they  represent,  as  well  as  the  character 
and  interests  of  the  Church  at  large,  to  declare,  by  solemn  and 
formal  avowal,  that  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  entire 
subject,  in  all  its  relations  and  bearings,  they  protest  as  above, 
for  the  reasons  and  upon  the  grounds  following,  viz.,  1st.  The 
proceeding  against  Bishop  Andrew  in  this  General  Conference 
has  been  upon  the  assumption  that  he  is  connected  with  slavery 
— that  he  is  the  legal  holder  and  owner  of  slave  property.  On 
the  subject  of  slav-ery  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, both 
as  it  regards  the  ministry  and  membership,  we  have  special 
law,  upon  which  the  adjudication  of  all  questions  of  slavery 
must,  by  intention  of  law,  proceed.  The  case  of  Bishop  An- 
drew, therefore,  presents  a  simple  question  of  law  and  fact, 
and  the  undersigned  cannot  consent  that  the  force  of  circum- 
stances and  other  merely  extrinsic  considerations  shall  be 
allowed  to  lead  to  any  issue,  except  that  indicated  by  the  law 
and  the  facts  in  the  case.  In  the  late  act  of  the  majority,  law, 
express  law,  is  appealed  from,  and  expediency  in  view  of 
circumstances — relative  propriety — assumed  necessity,  is  sub- 
stituted in  its  place  as  a  rule  of  judgment.  It  is  assumed,  and 
the  assumption  acted  upon,  that  expediency  may  have  juris- 
diction even  in  the  presence  of  law — the  law,  too,  being  special, 
and  covering  the  case,  in  terms.  In  the  absence  of  law,  it 
might  be  competent  for  the  General  Conference  to  act  upon 
other  grounds;  this  is  not  disputed,  nor  yet  that  it  would  have 
been  competent  for  the  Conference  to  proceed  upon  the  forms 
of  law — but  that  the  terms  and  conditions  of  a  special  enact- 
ment, having  all  the  force  of  a  common  public  charter,  can  be 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  /5 

rightfully  waived  in  practice,  at  the  promptings  of  a  fugitive 
unsettled  expediency,  is  a  position  the  undersigned  regard,  not 
merely  as  erroneous,  but  as  fraught  with  danger  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  Church. 

"  The  law  of  the  Church  on  slavery  has  always  existed  since 
1785,  but  especially  since  1804,  and  in  view  of  the  adjustment 
of  the  whole  subject,  in  1816,  as  a  virtual,  though  informd, 
contract  of  mutual  concession  and  forbearance,  between  the  North 
and  the  South,  then,  as  now,  known  and  existing  in  distinct 
parties,  in  relation  to  the  vexed  questions  of  slavery  and 
abolition.  Those  conferences  found  in  States  where  slavery 
prevailed  constituting  the  Southern  party,  and  those  in  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  the  Northern,  exceptions  to  the  rule  being 
found  in  both.  The  rights  of  the  legal  o\^aiers  of  slaves,  in  all 
the  slaveholding  States,  are  guarantied  by  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  by  the  local  constitutions  of  the  States 
respectively,  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  to  which  every 
minister  and  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States  government  professes  subjection, 
and  pledges  himself  to  submit,  as  an  article  of  Christian  faith, 
in  the  common  creed  of  the  Church.  Domestic  slavery, 
therefore,  wherever  it  exists  in  this  country,  is  a  civil  regulation, 
existing  under  the  highest  sanctions  of  constitutional  and  muni- 
cipal law,  known  to  the  tribunals  of  the  country,  and  it  has  al- 
ways been  assumed,  at  the  South,  and  relied  upon  as  correct, 
that  the  North  or  non-slaveholding  States,  had  no  right,  civil  or 
moral,  to  interfere  with  relations  and  interests  thus  secured  to 
the  people  of  the  South  by  all  the  graver  forms  of  law  and  social 
order,  and  that  it  cannot  be  done  without  an  abuse  of  the 
constitutional  rights  of  citizenship.  The  people  of  the  North, 
however,  have  claimed  to  think  differently,  and  have  uniformly 
acted  toward  the  South  in  accordance  with  such  opposition  of 
opinion.  Precisely  in  accordance,  too,  with  this  state  of  things, 
as  it  regards  the  general  population  of  the  North  and  South 
respectively,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  been  divided 
in  opinion  and  feeling  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition, 
since  its  organization  in  1784;  two  separate  and  distinct  parties 
have  always  existed.  The  Southern  Conferences,  in  agreeing 
to  the  main  principles  of  the  compromise  law  in  1804  and  1816, 
conceded  by  express  stipulation  their  right  to  resist  Northern 
interference  in  any  form,  upon  the  condition,  pledged  by  the 
North,  that  while  the  ivhole  Chia-ch,  by  common  consent,  united 
in  proper  effort  for  the  mitigation  and  final  removal  of  the  evil 
of  slavery,  the  North  was  not  to  interfere,  by  excluding  from 
membership  or  ministerial  office  in  the  Church,  persons  owning 
and  holding  slaves  in  States  where  emancipation  is  not  practi- 
cable, and  where  the  liberated  slave  is  not  permitted  to  enjoy 


76  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

freedom.  Such  was  the  compact  of  1804  and  1816,  finally 
agreed  to  by  the  parties  after  a  long  and  fearful  struggle,  and 
such  is  the  compact  now — the  proof  being  derived  from  history 
and  the  testimony  of  living  witnesses.  And  is  it  possible  to 
suppose  that  the  original  purpose  and  intended  application  of 
the  law  was  not  designed  to  embrace  every  member,  minister, 
order,  and  officer  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  Is  the 
idea  of  excepted  cases  allowable  by  a  fair  construction  of  the 
law?  Do  not  the  reasons  and  intendment  of  the  law  place  it 
beyond  doubt,  that  every  conceivable  case  of  alleged  miscon- 
duct that  can  arise,  connected  with  slavery  or  abolition,  is  to  be 
subjected  by  consent  and  contract  of  parties  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  this  great  conservative  arrangement? 

"  Is  there  any  thing  in  the  law  or  its  reasons  creating  an 
exception  in  the  instance  of  Bishops?  Would  the  South  have 
entered  into  the  arrangement,  or  in  any  form  consented  to  the 
law,  had  it  been  intimated  by  the  North  that  Bishops  must  be 
an  exception  to  the  rule?  Are  the  virtuous  dead  of  the  North 
to  be  slandered  by  the  supposition  that  they  intended  to  except 
Bishops,  and  thus  accomplished  their  purposes,  in  negotiation 
with  the  South,  by  a  resort  to  deceptive  and  dishonorable 
means?  If  Bishops  are  not  named,  no  more  are  presiding 
elders,  agents,  editors — or  indeed  any  other  officers  of  the 
Church,  who  are  nevertheless  included,  although  the  same  rule 
of  construction  \vould  except  them  also.  The  enactment  was 
for  an  entire  people.  East,  West,  North,  and  South.  It  was  for 
the  Church,  and  every  member  of  it — for  the  common  weal  of 
the  body — and  is  therefore  universal  and  unrestricted  in  its 
application;  and  no  possible  case  can  be  settled  upon  any  other 
principles,  without  a  direct  violation  of  this  law,  both  in  fact 
and  form.  The  law  being  what  we  have  assumed,  any  viola- 
tion of  it,  whatever  may  be  its  form  or  mode,  is  as  certainly  a 
breach  of  good  faith  as  an  infringement  of  law.  It  must  be 
,seen,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  compromise  was  effected, 
in  the  shape  of  a  law,  agreed  to  by  equal  contracting  parties, 
"  the  several  Annual  Conferences,"  after  long  and  formal 
negotiation,  that  it  was  not  a  mere  legislative  enactment,  a 
simple  decree  of  a  General  Conference,  but  partakes  of  the 
nature  of  a  grave  compact,  and  is  invested  with  all  the  sacred- 
ness  and  sanctions  of  a  solemn  treaty,  binding  respectively  the 
well-known  parties  to  its  terms  and  stipulations.  If  this  be  so, 
— and  with  the  evidence  accessible  who  can  doubt  it? — if  this 
be  so,  will  it  prove  a  light  matter  for  this  General  Conference 
to  violate  or  disregard  the  obligation  of  this  legal  comp  omise, 
in  the  shape  of  public  recognized  law?  Allow  that  the  present 
parties  in  this  controversy  cannot  be  brought  to  view  the  subject 
of  the  law  in  question  in  the  same  light,  can  such  a  matter  end 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  77 

in  a  mere  difference  of  opinion  as  it  respects  the  immediate 
parties?  The  law  exists  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Church.  The 
law  is  known,  and  its  reasons  are  known,  as  equally  binding 
upon  both  parties,  and  what  is  the  likelihood  of  the  imputation 
of  bad  faith  under  the  circumstances?  What  the  hazard,  that 
such  imputation,  as  the  decision  of  public  opinion,  it  may  be 
fj'om  a  thousand  tribunals,  will  be  brought  to  bear,  with  all 
the  light  and  force  of  conviction,  upon  any  act  of  this  body,  in 
violation  of  the  plain  provisions  of  long-established  law, 
originating  in  treaty,  and  based  upon  the  principles  of  conven- 
tional compromised 

"In  proportion  to  our  love  of  truth,  of  law,  and  order,  are 
we  not  called  upon  to  pause  and  weigh  well  the  hazard,  before, 
as  a  General  Conference,  we  incur  it  beyond  change  or  remedy? 
The  undersigned  have  looked  to  the  great  conservative  law  of 
the  Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  as  the 
only  charter  of  conncctional  union  between  the  North  and  the 
South;  and  whenever  this  bond  of  connection  is  rendered  null 
and  void,  no  matter  in  what  form,  or  by  what  means,  they  are 
compelled  to  regard  the  Church,  to  all  practical  purpose,  as 
already  divided  without  the  intervention  of  any  other  agency. 
By  how  far,  therefore,  they  look  upon  the  union  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  as  essential  to  its  prosperity,  and  the 
glory  and  success  of  American  Methodism,  by  so  far  they  are 
bound  to  protest  against  the  late  act  of  the  General  Conference 
in  the  irregular  suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  not  only 
without  law,  but  in  direct  contravention  of  legal  stipulations 
known  to  be  essential  to  the  unity  of  the  Church.  And  they 
are  thus  explicit  in  a  statement  of  facts,  that  the  responsibility 
of  division  may  attach  where  in  justice  it  belongs.  The 
minority  making  this  protest  are  perfectly  satisfied  M'ith  the 
law  of  the  Church  affecting  slavery  and  abolition.  They  ask 
no  change.  They  need — they  seek  no  indulgence  in  behalf  of 
the  South.  Had  Bishop  Andrew  been  suspended  according  to 
law,  after  due  form  of  trial,  they  would  have  submitted  without 
remonstrance,  as  the  friends  of  law  and  order. 

"  Tkey  except  and  protest  further,  against  the  lawless  procedure, 
as  they  think,  in  the  case  of  iiishop  Andrew,  because,  apart 
from  the  injustice  done  him  and  the  South,  by  the  act,  other 
and  graver  difficulties  necessarily  incidental  to  this  movement 
come  in  for  a  share  of  attention.  The  whole  subject  is,  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  resolved  into  a  single  original  question. 
Will  the  General  Conference  adhere  to,  and  in  good  faith  assert 
and  maintain  the  compromise  law  of  the  Church  on  the  vexeil 
question  dividing  us — or  will  it  be  found  expedient  generally, 
as  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  to  lay  it  aside  and  tread  it 
under  foot?    No  question  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition 


78  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  TIIE 

can  be  settled  until  the  General  Conference  shall  settle  tliis 
beyond  the  possibility  of  evasion.  In  the  present  crisis,  it  is 
the  opinion  of  the  undersigned,  that  every  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  every  member  of  this  General 
Conference,  is  especially  called  upon  by  all  the  responsibilities 
of  truth  and  honor  to  declare  himself  upon  the  subject,  and 
they  deem  it  proper,  respectfully  and  urgently,  to  make  such 
call  a  part  of  this  protest.  When  so  much  depends  upon  it, 
can  the  General  Conference,  as  the  organ  of  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Church,  remain  silent  without  incurring  the 
charge  of  trifling  both  with  its  interests  and  reputation?  Law 
always  pledges  the  public  faith  of  the  body  ostensibly  governed 
by  it  to  the  faithful  assertion  and  performance  of  its  stipulations, 
and  the  compromise  law  of  the  Discipline,  partaking  as  it 
does  of  the  nature  of  the  law  of  treaty,  and  embracing,  as  has 
been  seen,  all  possible  cases,  pledges  the  good  faith  of  every 
minister  and  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  against 
saying  or  doing  any  thing  tending  to  annul  the  force  or  thwart 
the  purposes  of  its  enactment.  The  only  allowable  remedy  of 
those  who  object  to  the  law  is  to  seek  a  constitutional  change 
of  the  law,  and  in  failure  to  submit,  or  else  retire  from  the 
Church.  All  attempts  to  resist,  evade,  or  defeat  the  objects 
and  intended  application  of  the  law,  until  duly  revoked,  must 
be  regarded  as  unjust  and  revolutionary,  because  an  invasion 
of  well-delined  conventional  right.  And  the  undersigned 
except  to  the  course  of  the  majority  in  the  informal  prosecution 
of  Bishop  Andrew  and  the  anomalous  quasi  suspension  it 
inflicts,  as  not  only  giving  to  the  compromise  a  construction 
rendering  it  entirely  ineffective,  but  as  being  directly  subv^ersive 
of  the  great  bond  of  union  which  has  held  the  North  and  South 
together  for  the  last  forty  jears.  Turning  to  the  confederating 
Annual  Conferences  of  1804,  and  the  vexed  and  protracted 
negotiations  which  preceded  the  General  Conference  of  that 
year,  and  finally  resulted  in  the  existing  law  of  the  Discipline, 
regulating  the  whole  subject,  and  glancing  at  nearly  half  a 
million  of  Methodists,  now  in  the  South,  who  have  come  into  the 
Church  with  all  their  hopes  and  fears,  interests  and  associations, 
their  property,  character,  and  influence,  reposing  in  safety  upon 
the  publicly  pledged  faith  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
only  to  be  told  that  this  is  all  a  dream,  that  a  part  of  M^hat  wa.s 
|)ledged  was  never  intended  to  be  allowed,  and  that  the  wdiole 
is  at  all  times  subject  to  the  discretion  of  a  dominant  majority, 
claiming,  in  matter  of  right,  to  be  without  and  above  law, 
competent  not  merely  to  make  all  rules  and  regulations  for  the 
proper  government  of  the  Church,  but  to  govern  the  Church 
without  rule  or  regulation,  and  punish  and  degi'ade  without 
even  the  alleged  infringement  of  law,  or  the  form  of  trial,  if 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  79 

it  be  thought  expedient,  presents  a  state  of  things  filUng  the 
undersigned  with  alarm  and  dismay.  Such  views  and  facts, 
without  adducing  others,  will  perhaps  be  sufficient  to  show  the 
lirst  and  principal  ground  occupied  by  the  minority  in  the 
protest.  They  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  the  majority 
have  failed  to  redeem  the  pledge  of  pu]:)lic  law  given  to  tho 
Church  and  the  world  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"2d.  The  undersigned  are  aware  that  it  is  affirmed  by  some 
of  the  majority,  but  meanwhile  denied  by  others,  and  thus  a 
mooted  and  unsettled  question  among  themselves,  that  the 
resolution  censuring  and  virtually  suspending  Bishop  Andrew, 
as  understood  by  the  minority,  is  mere  matter  of  advice  or 
recommendation;  but  so  far  from  advising  or  recommending 
any  thing,  the  language  of  the  resolution,  by  fair  and  necessary 
construction,  is  imperative  and  mandatory  in  form,  and,  un- 
qualified by  any  thing  in  the  resolution  itself,  or  in  the  preamble 
explaining  it,  conveys  the  idea  plainly  and  most  explicitly,  that 
it  is  the  judgment  and  wall  of  the  Conference  that  Bishop 
Andrew  shall  cease  to  exercise  the  office  of  Bishop  until  he 
shall  cease  to  be  the  owner  of  slaves.  'Resolved,  That  it  is 
the  sense  of  this  Conference  that  he  desist.'  That  is,  having 
rendered  himself  unacceptable  to  the  majority,  it  is  their  judg- 
ment that  he  retire  from  the  bench  of  Bishops,  and  their  field 
of  action. 

"  No  idea  of  request,  advice,  or  recommendation,  is  convened 
by  the  language  of  the  preamble  or  resolution,  and  the  recent 
avowal  of  an  intention  to  advise  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
undersigned,  disowned  by  the  very  terms  in  which,  it  is  said, 
the  advice  M'as  given.  The  whole  argument  of  the  majoi-ity, 
during  a  debate  of  twelve  days,  turned  upon  the  right  of  the 
Conference  to  displace  Bishop  Andrew  without  resort  to  formal 
trial.  No  one  questioned  the  legal  right  of  the  Conference  to 
advise;  and  if  this  only  was  intended,  why  the  protracted 
debate  upon  the  subject?  But  further,  a  resolution  respectfully 
and  affectionately  requesting  the  Bishop  to  resign  had  been 
laid  aside,  to  entertain  the  su^bstitute  under  notice;  a  motion 
too  to  declare  the  resolution  advisory  wa.s  promptly  rejected 
by  the  majority;  and  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  and  the  entire 
proceedings  of  the  majority  in  the  case,  the  undersigned  have 
been  compelled  to  consider  the  resolution  as  mandatory  judg- 
ment, to  the  efi'ect  that  Bishop  Andrew  desist  from  the  exercise 
of  his  episcopal  functions.  If  the  majority  have  been  misun- 
derstood, the  language  of  their  own  resolution,  and  the  position 
tiiey  occupied  in  debate,  have  led  to  the  misconcei)tion;  and 
truth  and  honor,  not  less  than  a  most  unfortunate  use  of  lan- 
iTuage,  require  that  they  explain  themselves. 

*'  3d.  We  except  to  the  act  of  the  majority,  because  it  i.s 


80  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

assumed  that  conscience  and  principle  are  involved,  and  require 
the  act  complained  of,  as  expedient  and  necessary  under  the 
circumstances.  Bishop  Andrew  being  protected  by  the  law  of 
the  Church,  having  cognizance  of  all  offences  connected  with 
slaver}',  such  connection  in  his  case,  in  the  judgment  of  all 
jurisprudence,  can  only  be  wrong  in  proportion  as  the  law  is 
bad  and  defective.  It  is  not  conceived  by  the  minority,  how 
conscience  and  principle  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  Bishop 
Andrew,  and  not  upon  the  law  and  the  Church  having  such  law. 
They  are  obliged  to  believe  that  the  law  and  the  source  from 
which  it  eAianates  must  become  the  object  of  exception  and 
censure  before  Bishop  Andrew,  who  has  not  offended  against 
either,  unless  the  Church  is  against  the  law,  can  be  subjected 
to  trial  at  the  bar  of  the  conscience  and  principles  of  men  who 
profess  subjection  and  approval,  in  the  instance  both  of  the  law 
and  the  Church. 

"  The  undersigned  can  never  consent,  while  we  have  a  plain 
law,  obviously  covering  an  assumed  offence,  that  the  offence 
shall  be  taken,  under  plea  of  principle,  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
law,  and  be  re-subjected  to  the  conflicting  opinions  and  passions 
which  originall}'  led  to  a  resort  to  law,  as  the  only  safe  standard 
of  judgment.  They  do  not  understand  how  conscience  and 
principle  can  attach  grave  blame  to  action,  not  disapproved 
by  law — express  law  too,  made  and  provided  in  the  case — 
without  extending  condemnation  to  the  law  itself,  and  the  body 
from  which  it  proceeds.  The  Church  can  hardly  be  supposed 
to  have  settled  policy  and  invariable  custom,  in  contravention 
of  law;  the  avowal  of  such  custom  and  policy  therefore,  ex- 
cluding from  the  episcopacy  any  and  every  man,  in  any  way 
connected  with  slavery,  is  mere  assumption.  No  contract, 
agreement,  decree,  or  purpose  of  this  kind,  is  of  record,  or 
ever  existed.  A^o  such  exaction,  in  terms  or  by  implication, 
was  ever  made  by  the  North,  or  conceded  by  the  South.  No 
conventional  understanding  ever  existed  to  this  effect,  so  far 
as  the  South  is  concerned,  or  has  been  informed.  That  it  has 
long,  perhaps  always,  been  the  purpose  of  the  North,  not  to 
elect  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  Bishop,  is  admitted.  But 
as  no  law  gave  countenance  to  any  thing  of  the  kind,  the  South 
regarded  it  as  a  mere  matter  of  social  injustice,  and  was  not 
disposed  to  complain.  The  North  has  always  found  its  security 
in  numbers,  and  the  untrammeled  right  of  suffJ'rage,  and  to  this 
the  South  has  not  objected.  The  assumption,  however,  is 
entirely  different,  and  is  not  admitted  by  the  South,  but  is 
plainly  negatived  by  the  law  and  language  of  the  Discipline, 
as  explained  by  authority  of  the  General  Conference. 

"No  such  concession,  beyond  peaceable  submission  to  the 
right  of  suffrage,  exercised  by  the  majority,  will  ever  be  sub- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  81 

mitted  to  by  the  South,  as  it  would  amount  to  denial  of  equal 
abstract  right,  and  a  disfranchisement  of  the  Southern  ministry, 
and  could  not  be  submitted  to  without  injury  and  degradation. 
If,  then,  the  North  is  not  satisfied  with  the  negative  right 
conceded  to  the  South  by  law  in  this  matter,  the  minority  would 
be  glad  to  know  what  princij)le  or  policy  is  likely  to  introduce 
beyond  the  existing-  provisions  of  law.  As  the  contingency 
which  has  occasioned  the  difficulty  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  and  to  which  every  Southern  minister  is  liable  at  any 
time,  does  not,  and  cannot  fall  under  the  condemnation  of  existing 
laM?^,  and  he  cannot  be  punished,  nor  yet  subjected  to  any  official 
disability,  without  an  abuse  of  both  right  and  power,  on  the 
part  of  this  General  Conference,  the  minority  are  compelled  to 
think  that  the  majority  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  the  conscious- 
ness and  declaration,  that  they  are  in  no  way  responsible  for 
the  contingency,  and  thus,  at  least,  allow  Bishop  Andrew  the 
benefit  of  their  own  legislation,  until  they  see  proper  to  change 
it.  This  attempt  by  the  majority  to  protect  a  lawless  prosecu- 
tion from  merited  rebuke,  by  an  appeal  to  conscience  and 
principle,  condemning  Bishop  Andrew,  w^hile  the  law  and  the 
Church,  shielding  him  from  the  assault,  are  not  objected  to,  is 
looked  upon  by  the  minority  as  a  species  of  moral,  we  will 
not  say  legal  casuistry,  utterly  subversive  of  all  the  principles 
of  order  and  good  government. 

"4th.  The  act  of  the  majority  was  ostensibly  resorted  to, 
because,  as  alleged,  the  Church  in  the  middle  and  Northern 
Conferences  will  not  submit  to  any,  the  slightest  connection 
with  slavery.  But  if  connection  with  slavery  is  ruinous  to  the 
Church  in  the  North,  that  ruin  is  already  wi-ought.  Who  does 
not  know  that  the  very  Discipline,  laws,  and  legislation  of  the 
Church  necessarily  connect  us  all  with  slavery?  All  our  pro- 
visional legislation  on  the  subject  has  proceeded  on  the  assump- 
tion that  slavery  is  an  element  of  society — a  principle  of  action 
— a  household  reality  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  economy  of  Ameri- 
can Methodism,  in  every  subjective  sense.  It  has  given  birth 
to  law  and  right,  conventional  arrangements,  numerous  mis- 
sions, and  official  trusts.  Every  Bishop,  every  minister,  every 
member  of  the  Church  is  of  necessity  connected  with  slavery. 
Each  is  brother  and  co-member,  both  with  slave  and  master, 
by  the  very  laws  and  organization  of  the.  Church. 

"  If,  then,  connection  with  slavery  is  so  disastrous,  the  only 
remedy  is  to  purify  the  Church  by  re-organization,  or  get  out 
of  it  as  soon  as  possible.  And  would  not  this  aversion  to  slavery 
— would  not  conscience  and  principle,  so  much  plead  in  this 
controversy,  appear  much  more  consistent  in  every  view  of  the 
subject  in  striking  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  in  the  organic  struc- 


82  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

ture  of  the  Church,  than  in  seeking  its  personification  in  Bish- 
op Andrew,  protected  although  he  be  by  law,  and  proceeding  to 
punish  him,  by  way  of  calling  off  attention  from  the  known 
toleration  of  the  same  thing,  in  other  aspects  and  relations? 

"  Impelled  by  conscience  and  principle  to  the  illegal  arrest 
of  a  Bishop,  because  he  has  incidentally,  by  bequest,  inheritance, 
and  marriage,  come  into  possession  of  slave  property,  in  no 
instance  intending  to  possess  himself  of  such  property,  how 
long  will  conscience  and  principle  leave  other  ministers,  or 
even  lay  members  undisturbed,  who  may  happen  to  be  in  the 
same  category  with  Bishop  Andrew?  Will  assurances  be 
given  that  the  lawlessness  of  expediency,  controlled,  as  in  such 
case  it  must  be,  by  prejudice  and  passion,  will  extend  no 
farther — that  there  shall  be  no  further  curtailment  of  right  as 
it  regards  the  Southern  ministry?  Yet  what  is  the  security  of 
the  South  in  the  case?  Is  the  public  faith  of  this  body,  as 
instanced  in  the  recent  violations  of  the  compromise  law,  to 
be  relied  upon  as  the  guaranty  for  the  redemption  of  the 
pledge?  What  would  such  pledge  or  assurance  be  but  to 
remind  the  South  that  any  departure  at  all  from  the  great 
conservative  pledge  of  lav^^,  to  which  we  appeal,  was  much 
more  eifectively  guarded  against  originally,  than  it  is  possible 
to  guard  against  any  subsequent  infringement,  and  to  make 
the  South  feel  further  that  disappointment  in  the  first  instance 
must  compel  distrust  with  regard  to  the  future?  The  Church 
having  specific  law  on  the  subject,  all  questions  involving 
slavery  must  inevitably,  by  intention  of  law,  come  within  the 
purview  of  such  special  provision,  and  cannot  be  judged  o^ 
by  any  other  law  or  standard,  without  a  most  daring  departure 
from  all  the  rules  and  sobrieties  of  judicial  procedure,  and  the 
undersigned  accordingly  except  to  the  action  of  the  majority  in 
relation  to  Bishop  Andrew,  as  not  only  without  sanction  of  law, 
but  in  conflict  with  rights  created  by  law. 

"  5th.  As  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  now  organized, 
and  according  to  its  organization  since  1784,  the  episcopacy  is 
a  co-ordinate  branch,  the  executive  department  proper  of  the 
government.  A  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is 
not  a  mere  creature-^is  in  no  prominent  sense  an  oflicer  of 
the  General  Conference.  The  General  Conference,  as  such, 
cannot  constitute  a  Bishop.  It  is  true,  the  Annual  Conferences 
select  the  Bishops  of  their  Church,  by  the  sufli-ages  of  their 
delegates,  in  Genertfl  Conference  assembled,  but  the  General 
Conference  in  its  capacity  of  a  representative  body  or  any 
other  in  which  it  exists,  does  not  possess  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion, without  which  a  Bishop  cannot  be  constituted. 

"  The  Bishops  are  beyond  a  doubt  an  integral  constituent 
part  of  the  General  Conference,  made  such  by  law  and  the 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  8$  " 

constitution;  and  because  elected  by  the  General  Conference, 
it  does  not  follow  that  they  are  subject  to  the  will  of  that  body, 
except  in  conformity  with  legal  right  and  the  provisions  of  law, 
in  the  premises.  In  this  sense,  and  so  viewed,  they  are  subject 
to  the  General  Conference,  and  this  is  sufficient  Hmitation  of 
their  power,  unless  the  government  itself  is  to  be  considered 
irregular  and  unbalanced  in  the  co-ordinate  relations  of  its 
parts.  In  a  sense  by  no  means  unimportant  the  General  Con- 
ference is  as  much  the  creature  of  the  episcopacy,  as  the  Bishops 
are  the  creatures  of  the  General  Conference.  Constitutionally 
the  Bishops  alone  have  the  right  to  fix  the  time  of  holding  the 
Annual  Conferences,  and  should  they  refuse  or  neglect  to  do 
so,  no  Annual  Conference  could  meet,  according  to  law,  and, 
by  consequence,  no  delegates  could  be  chosen,  and  no  General 
Conference  could  be  chosen,  or  even  exist.  And  because  this 
is  so,  what  would  be  thought  of  the  impertinent  pretension, 
should  the  episcopacy  claim  that  the  General  Conference  is 
the  mere  creature  of  their  will?  As  cxccnlive  officers  as  well  as 
pastoral  overseers,  the  Bishops  belong  to  the  Church  as  such,  and 
not  to  the  General  Conference  as  one  of  its  counsels  or  organs 
of  action  merely. 

"  The  General  Conference  is  in  no  sense  the  Church,  not 
even  representatively.  It  is  merely  the  representative  organ 
of  the  Church,  with  limited  powers  to  do  business,  in  the 
discharge  of  a  delegated  trust. 

"  Because  Bishops  are  in  part  constituted  by  the  General 
Conference,  the  power  of  removal  does  not  follow.  Episcopacy 
even  in  the  Methodist  Church,  is  not  a  mere  appointment  to 
labor.  It  is  an  official  consecrated  station,  under  the  protection 
of  law,  and  can  only  be  dangerous  as  the  law  is  bad,  or  the 
Church  corrupt.  The  power  to  appoint  does  not  necessarily 
involve  the  power  to  remove;  and  when  the  appointing  power 
is  derivative,  as  in  the  case  of  the  General  Conference,  the 
power  of  removal  does  not  accrue  at  all,  unless  by  consent  of 
the  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  government,  expressed  by  law, 
made  and  provided  in  the  case.  When  the  Legislature  of  a 
{State,  to  appeal  to  analogy  for  illustration,  appoints  a  Judge  or 
Senator  in  Congress,  does  the  Judge  or  Senator  thereby  become 
the  officer  or  creature  of  the  Legislature,  or  is  he  the  officer  or 
senatorial  representative  of  the  State,  of  which  the  Legislature 
is  the  mere  organ?  And  does  the  power  of  removal  follow 
that  of  appointment?  The  answer  is  negative,  in  both  cases, 
and  applies  equally  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Chm'ch,  who,  instead  of  being  the  officers  and  creatures  of  the 
General  Conference,  are  de  facto  the  officers  and  servants  of 
the  Church,  chosen  by  the  General  Conference,  as  its  organ  of 
action,  and  no  right  of  removal  accrues,  except  as  they  fail  to 


84  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

accomplish  the  aims  of  the  Church  in  their  appointment,  and 
then  only  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  law.  But  when 
a  Bishop  is  suspended,  or  informed  that  it  is  the  wish  or  will  of 
the  General  Conference  that  he  cease  to  perform  the  functions 
of  Bishop,  for  doing  what  the  law  of  the  same  body  allows  him 
to  do,  and  of  course  without  incurring  the  hazard  of  punishment, 
or  even  blame,  then  the  whole  procedure  becomes  an  outrage 
upon  justice,  as  well  as  law. 

"  The  assumption  of  power  by  the  General  Conference 
beyond  the  warrant  of  law,  to  which  we  object,  and  against 
which  we  protest,  will  lead,  if  carried  into  practice,  to  a  direct 
violation  of  one  of  the  restrictive  rules  of  the  constitution. 
Suppose  it  had  been  the  'sense'  of  this  General  Conference, 
when  the  late  communication  from  the  Bishops  was  respectfully 
submitted  to  the  Conference,  that  such  communication  was  an 
interference  with  their  rights  and  duties — an  attempt  to  tamper 
with  the  purity  and  independence,  and  therefore  an  outrage 
upon  the  claims  and  dignity  of  the  Conference  not  to  be  borne 
with.  And  proceeding  a  step  further,  suppose  it  had  been  the 
'sense'  of  the  Conference  that  they  all  desist  from  performing 
the  functions  of  Bishops  until  the  '  impediment'  of  such  offence 
had  been  removed — assume  this,  (and  so  far  as  mere  law  is 
concerned,  no  la\v  being  violated  in  either  case,  it  Avas  just  as 
likely  as  the  movement  against  Bishop  Andrew,)  and  had  it 
taken  place,  what  had  become  of  the  general  superintendency? 
If  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may,  without 
law,  and  at  the  instance  of  mere  party  expediency,  be  suspended 
from  the  exercise  of  the  appropriate  functions  of  his  office,  for 
one  act,  he  may  for  another.  Admit  this  doctrine,  and  by  what 
tenure  do  the  Bishops  hold  office?  One  thing  is  certain, 
whatever  other  tenure  there  may  be,  they  do  not  hold  office 
according  to  laiv. 

"  The  provisions  of  law  and  the  faithful  performance  of 
duty,  upon  this  theory  of  official  tenure,  affijrd  no  security. 
Admit  this  claim  of  absolutism,  as  regards  right  and  power  on 
the  part  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  slaves,  and  men  constituting 
this  body  their  masters  and  holders.  They  are  in  office  only 
at  the  discretion  of  a  majority  of  the  General  Conference, 
without  the  restraints  or  protection  of  law.  Both  the  law  and 
themselves  are  liable  and  likely  at  any  time  to  be  overborne 
and  trampled  upon  together,  as  exemplified  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew.  If  the  doctrine  against  which  we  protest  be 
admitted,  the  episcopal  office  is,  at  best,  but  a  quadrennial 
term  of  service,  and  the  undersigned  are  compelled  to  think 
that  the  man  who  would  i^emain  a  Bishop,  or  allow  himself  to 
be  made  one,  under  such  circumstances,  '  desires  a  good  work,' 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  85 

and  is  prepared  for  self-sacrifice ,  quite  beyond  the  comprelien- 
sion  of  ordinary  piety. 

"  As  it  regards  Bishop  Andrew,  if  it  shall  be  made  to  appear 
that  the  action  in  his  case  was  intended  only  to  advise  and 
7'cqutst  him  to  desist  from  his  office,  it  does  not  in  any  way  affect 
the  real  or  relative  character  of  the  movement.  When  a  body 
claiming  the  right  to  compel,  asks  the  resignation  of  an  oliicer, 
the  request  is  to  all  official  and  moral  purposes  conipuhorij,  as 
it  loads  the  ofhcer  with  disability,  and  gives  notice  of  assumed 
un worthiness,  if  not  criminality.  The  request  has  all  the  force 
of  a  mandate,  inasmuch  as  the  officer  is  by  such  request  com- 
pelled either  to  resign  or  remain  in  office  contrary  to  the  known 
will  of  the  majority.  A  simple  request,  therefore,  under  the 
circumstances  supposed,  carries  with  it  all  the  force  of  a  decree, 
and  is  so  understood,  it  is  believed,  by  all  the  world. 

"To  request  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign,  therefore,  in  view  of 
all  the  facts  and  relations  of  the  case,  was,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  minority,  to  punish  and  degrade  him;  and  they  maintain 
that  the  ^vhole  movement  was  without  authority  of  faw,  is 
hence  of  necessity  null  and  void,  and  therefore  not  binding 
upon  Bishop  Andrew,  or  the  minority  protesting  against  it. 

"  Gth.  We  protest  against  the  act  of  the  majority,  instructing 
Bishop  Andrew  to  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his  office,  not 
merely  on  account  of  the  injustice  and  evil  connecting  witli 
the  act  itself,  but  because  the  act  must  be  understood  as  the 
exponent  of  principles  and  purposes,  as  it  regards  the  union 
of  the  North  and  South  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
well  nigh  destroying  all  hope  of  its  perpetuity.  The  true 
position  of  the  parties  in  relation  to  a  long  existing  conven- 
tional arrangement,  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition, 
has  been  fully  under  notice;  and  when  men  of  years  and 
wisdom,  experience  and  learning — men  of  no  common  weight 
of  character,  and  with  a  well  earned  aristocracy  of  Church 
inffiience  thrown  about  them,  assume  and  declare,  in  action  as 
well  as  in  debate,  that  what  a  plain  law  of  the  Church — the  only 
law  applicable  in  the  case — sustained  and  enforced,  too,  by 
an  explanatory  decree  of  this  body,  at  a  previous  session  decides 
— shall  not  be  a  disqualification  for  office,  of  any  grade,  in  the 
ministry — when  such  men,  the  law  and  decision  of  the  General 
Conference  notwithstanding,  are  heard  declaring  that  what 
law  provides  for  and  protects  nevertheless  ahrays  lias  been  and 
almiijs  shall  be  a  disqualification,  what  further  evidence  is 
wanting  to  show  that  the  coiDproniisc  basis  of  uniou.  from  which 
tlie  South  his  never  swerved,  has  been  abandoned  both  by  the 
Northern  and  middle  Conferences,  with  a  few  exceptions  in 
the  latter,  and  that  principles  and  purposes  are  entertained 
by  the  majority,  driving  the  South  to  extreme  action,  in  defence 

8 


86  IlL-^TORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

I  )otb  of  their  rights  and  reputation?  And  how  far  the  long  train 
of  eventful  sequences,  attendant  upon  the  threatened  result  of 
division,  maybe  traceable  to  the  Northern  and  middle  Confer- 
ences, by  the  issue  thus  provoked,  is  a  question  to  be  settled  not 
])y  us,  but  by  our  contemporaiies  and  posterit}'. 

"  It  is  matter  of  history,  with  regard  to  the  past,  and  will  not 
])e  questioned,  that  now,  as  formerly,  the  South  is  upon  the 
l)asis  of  the  Discipline,  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  minority 
])elieve  it  equally  certain  that  this  is  not  true  with  regard  to 
the  North  proper  especially.  In  view,  then,  of  the  unity  of  the 
jMetliodist  Episcopal  Church,  M^iich  party  has  been,  in  equity, 
entitled  to  the  sympathy  and  protection  of  the  middle  or  umpire 
Conferences?  those  who  through  good  and  evil  report  have  kept 
good  faith  and  adhered  to  law,  or  those  whose  opinions  and 
])urposes  have  led  them  to  seek  a  state  of  things  in  advance 
of  law,  and  thus  dishonor  its  forms  and  sanctions? 

"7th.  In  proportion  as  the  minority  appi'eciate  and  cling  to 
the  unity  of  the  Metliodist  E])iscopal  Church,  they  are  bound, 
further,  to  except  to  the  position  of  the  maiority,in  this  contro- 
versy. Allow  that  Bishop  Andrew,  without,  how^ever,  any 
infringement  of  law,  is,  on  account  of  his  connection  ^vith 
slavery,  unacceptable  in  the  Northern  Conferences.  It  is 
equally  known  to  the  majority,  that  any  Bishop  of  the  Church, 
either  violating,  or  submitting  to  a  violation  of  the  compromise 
charter  of  union  bctwecm  the  North  and  the  South,  without 
proper  and  public  remonstrance,  cannot  be  acceptable  at  the 
South,  and  need  not  appear  there.  By  pressing  the  issue  in 
question,  therefore,  the  majority  virtually  dissolve  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  because  in  every 
constitutional  aspect  it  is  sundered  by  so  crippling  a  co-ordinate 
bi-anch  of  it  as  to  destroy  the  itinerant  general  superintendency 
altogether.  Whenever  it  is  clearly  ascertained  that  the  com- 
jn-omise  la\v  of  the  CJiurch,  regulating  slavery  and  abolition,  is 
abandoned,  every  Bishop,  each  of  the  venerable  and  excellent 
men  who  noM'  adorn  the  Church  and  its  counsels,  ceases  to  be 
a  general  superintendent.  The  law  of  union,  the  principle  of 
gravitation,  binding  us  together,  is  dissolved,  and  the  general 
superintendency  of  \\\q  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  no  more! 

"8th.  The  South  have  not  been  led  thus  to  protest  merely 
because  of  the  treatment  received  by  Bishop  Andrew,  or  the 
kindred  action  of  tliis  body  in  other  matters.  The  abandon- 
ment of  the  compromise — the  ofiicial  refusal  by  the  majority, 
as  Ave  have  understood  them,  to  abide  the  arbitrament  of  law, 
is  their  principal  ground  of  complaint  and  remonstrance.  If 
the  minority  have  not  entirely  misunderstood  the  majority,  the 
abolition  and  anti-slavery  principh^s  of  the  North  will  no  longer 
allow  them  to  submit  to  the  law  of  the  Discipline  on  the  general 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  87 

subject  of  slavery  and  abolition;  and  if  this  be  so,  if  the 
compromise  law  be  either  repealed  or  allowed  to  remain  a 
dead  letter,  the  South  cannot  submit,  and  the  absolute  neccssiti/  w/' 
division  is  already  dated.  And  should  the  exig(>nt  circumstances 
in  which  the  minority  find  themselves  placed,  by  the  facts  and 
developments  alluded  to  in  this  remonstrance,  render  it  finally 
necessary  that  the  Southern  Conferences  should  have  a  separate, 
independent  existence,  it  is  hoped  that  the  character  and  services 
of  the  minority,  together  with  the  numbers  and  claims  of  the 
ministry  and  membership  of  the  portion  of  the  Church  repre- 
sented by  them,  not  less  than  similar  reasons  and  considerations 
on  the  part  of  the  Northern  and  middle  Conferences,  will 
suggest  the  high  moral  fitness  of  meeting  this  great  emergency 
'  with  strong  and  steady  purpose  to  do  justice  to  all  concerned. 
And  it  is  believed  that,  approaching  the  subject  in  this  way,  it 
will  be  found  practicable  to  devise  and  adopt  such  measures 
and  arrangements,  present  and  prospective,  as  will  secure  an 
amicable  division  of  the  Church  upon  the  broad  principles  of 
right  and  equity,  and  destined  to  result  in  the  common  good  of 
the  great  body  of  ministers  and  members  found  on  either  side 
tJie  line  of  separation. 

Signed  by  the  following  delegates,  viz: — - 

"■Kentucky. — H.  B.'  Bascom,  William  Gunn,  II.  II.  Kava- 
naugh,  Edward  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush. 

"  Virginia  Conference. — John  Early,  W.  A.  Smith,  Thomas 
Crowder,  Leroy  M.  Lee. 

"Missouri. — W.  W.  Redman,  William  Patton,  J.  C.  Berry- 
man,  .T.  M.  Jameson. 

^^  Holston. — E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  Thomas  Stringfield. 

"  Georgia.— G.  F.  Pierce,  William  J.  Parks,  L.  Pierce,  J.  W. 
Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet. 

"  North  Carolina. — James  Jamieson,  Peter  Doub,  B.  T.  Blake. 

"  Illinois. — N.  C.  Berryman,  J.  Stamper. 

"  Memphis. — G.  W.  D.  Harris,  Wm.  McMahon,  Thomas  Joy- 
ner,  S.  S.  Moody. 

"  Arkansas. — J.  C.  Parker,  Wm.  P.  Ratcliffe,  A.  Hunter. 

''Mississippi. — W.Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  J.Lane,  G.  M.Rogers. 

"  Te.vas. — Littleton  Fowler. 

''Alabama. — J.  Boring,  J.  Hamilton,  W.  Murrah,  G.  Garrett. 

"  Tennessee. — Robert  Paine,  John  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green, 
T.  Maddin. 

"  South  Carolina. — William  Capers,  William  M.  Wightman, 
Charles  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker. 

"  Philadelphia— \.  T.  Cooper,  W.  Cooper,  T.  I.  Thompson, 
Henry  White. 

"  6hio—E.  W.  Sehon. 

New  Jersey — T.  Neal,  T,  Sovereign." 


88  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

The  chair  ordered  the  Protest  to  be  entered  upon  the  Con- 
ference journal. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Simpson,  Dr.  OUn,  Dr.  Durbin,  and  Mr. 
llamline  were  appointed  a  committee  "to  prepare  a  statement 
of  facts  connected  with  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,"  and  that  they  have  hberty  to  examine  the  Protest," 
&c.  In  other  words,  the  committee  Avas  raised  to  prepare  a 
r(q)hi  to  the  Protest,  and  this  purpose  is  distinctly  avowed;  but 
as  a  rcphj  to  a  protest  was  a  thing  without  precedent,  it  was 
so  modilied  as  to  propose  a  "  statement  of  facts." 

The  action  of  the  Conference  had  involved  the  Bishops  in  a 
perplexing  difficulty.  The  Conference  had  declared  it  the 
sense  of  tlie  body  that  Bishop  Andrew  should  cease  to  exercise 
the  functions  of  his  office;  but  the  resolution  was  so  conveniently 
ambiguous,  that  while  on  the  one  hand  Mr.  Hamline  had 
pronounced  it  "  a  mandamus  measure,  whose  passage  would 
ABSOLUTELY  suspcud  tlic  cxercisc  of  the  superintendent'' s  functions, 
until  he  complied  with  the  prescribed  condition — ^the  power  to  do 
Avhich  was  the  same  with  that  required  to  suspend  or  depose  a 
Bishop," — on  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Durbin  said  that  the  resolu- 
tion "  only  proposed  to  express  the  sense  of  this  Conference  in 
regard  to  a  matter  which  it  cannot,  in  duty  and  conscience, 
pass  by  without  a  suitable  expression;  and  having  made  the 
solemn  expression,  it  leaves  Bishop  AndrcAV  to  act  as  his  sense 
of  duty  shall  dictate."  He  even  said,  that  if  any  man  should 
charge  him,  in  voting  for  the  resolution,  (the  mandamus  measure 
of  absolute  suspension  of  Mr.  Hamline,)  with  voting  to  depose 
Bishop  Andrew,  he  would  consider  it  a  personal  insult.  Now, 
it  became  the  duty  of  the  Bishops  to  make  out  and  publish 
their  plan  of  episcopal  visitation  for  the  succeeding  four  years, 
at  the  close  of  the  General  Conference;  and  if  the  construction 
of  the  Hamline  section  was  correct.  Bishop  Andrew  was 
'•  absolutely  suspended,"  and  of  course  could  not  be  taken  into 
the  plan  of  episcopal  labor;  bat  if  the  Durbin  section  of  the 
party  was  right,  then  the  General  Conference  having  expressed 
its  sense  of  the  matter,  left  Bishop  Andrew  perfectly  free  to  be 
governed  by  his  sense  of  duty,  and  of  course  there  was  nothing 
to  prevent  his  being  rendered  available  in  the  episcopacy.  In 
this  state  of  conflicting  opinions  among  the  Northern  leaders, 
the  Bishops  found  it  necessary  to  apply  again  to  the  oracle  for 
a  less  equivocal  response;  for  act  as  they  might,  they  must 
come  into  conflict  with  one  or  other  division  of  the  majjority. 
'I'hey  therefore  addressed  to  the  General  Conference  the  follow^- 
ing  inquiries: — 

"  To  the  General  Conference. 
■■  Reverend  and  Dear  Brethren, — 

■'  As  the   case   of  Bishop  Andrew  unvoidably  involves  the 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  89 

future  action  of  the  superintendents,  which,  in  their  judgment, 
in  the  present  position  of  the  Bishop,  they  have  no  discretion 
to  decide  upon,  they  respectfully  request  of  the  General  Con- 
ference official  instruction,  in  answer  to  the  following  ques- 
tions:— ■ 

''  Firsf.  Shall  Bishop  Andrew's  name  remain  as  it  now  stands 
in  the  Minutes,  Hymn  book,  and  Discipline,  or  shall  it  be  struck 
off  these  official  records? 

"  Second.  How  shall  the  Bishop  obtain  his  support? — as  pro- 
vided for  in  the  form  of  Discipline,  or  in  some  other  way? 

"'  Third.  What  woi'k,  if  any,  may  the  Bishop  perform;  and 
how  shall  he  be  appointed  to  the  work? 

"  Joshua  Soule, 
"Elijah  Hedding, 
"  Beverly  Waugh. 
"  Thos.  a.  Morris." 

To  these  inquiries  the  Conference  returned  the  following 
answer: — 

'■'Resolved,  1st,  as  the  sense  of  this  Conference,  That  Bishop 
Andrew's  name  stand  in  the  Minutes,  Hymn-book,  and  Di>- 
cipline,  as  formerly. 

"  Resolved,  2d,  That  the  rule  in  reference  to  the  support  of  a 
Bishop  and  his  family,  applies  to  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  Resolved,  3d,  That  whether  in  any,  and  in  what  work,  Bishop 
Andrew  be  employed,  is  to  be  determined  by  his  own  decision 
and  action,  in  relation  to  the  previous  action  of  this  Conference 
in  his  case." 

The  first  of  these  resolutions  was  aloptcd  b}'  a  vote  of  15;") 
to  17,  none  voting  against  it  but  ultra  northerners  or  aboli- 
tionists. 

The  second  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  152  to  14. 

On  the  third,  the  grand  mystifying  resolution,  which  placed 
the  matter  just  where  it  was  before,  the  vote  stood  as  follows: 

Yeas.  Nathan  Bangs,  Phineas  Rice,  George  Peck,  John  B. 
Stratten,  Peter  P.  Sandford.  Fitch  lleed,  Samuel  D.  Ferguson. 
Stephen  Martindale,  Marvin  Richardson,  J.  Lovejoy,  F.  Upham, 
S.Benton,  Paul  Townsend,  J.  Porter,  D.  S.  King,  P.  Crandall, 
C.  Adams,  G.  Pickering,  M.  Hill,  E.  Robinson,  D.  B.  Randall, 
C.  W.  Morse,  .1.  Hobart,  Heman  Nickerson,  G.  Webber,  Elihu 
Scott,  S.  Chamberlain,  Samuel  Kelley,  .1.  Perkins,  J.  Spaulding, 
C.  D.  Cahoon,  William  D.  Cass,  Truman  Seymour,  James  Covel, 
Tobias  Spicer,  Sevmom*  Coleman,  James  B.  Houghtaling,  Jesse 
T.  Peck,  A.  D.  Peck,  A.  Adams,  G.  Baker,  W.  W.  x\indc,  J 
M.  Snyder,  S.  Comfort,  N.  Rounds,  D.  A.  Shepherd,  H.  F.  Row, 
E.  Bowcn,  D.  Holmes,  G.  Filmore,  S.  Luckey,  A.  Steele,  F.  G. 
Hibbard,  A.  Abell,  W.  Hosmer,  J.  B.  Alverson,  J.  S.  Steadman, 
John  Bain,  G.  W.  Clarke.  J.  Robinson,  T.  Goodwin.  Wilfiam 


90  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

Hunter,  11.  J.  Clark,  J.  Spencer,  S.  Elliott,  8.  Wakefield,  J. 
Drummond,  C.  Elliott,  William  H.  llaper,  J.  M.  Trimble,  J.B. 
Finley,  L.  L.  Hamline,  Z.  Connell,  J.  H.  Power,  A.  Poe,  E. 
Yocum,  W.  Runnells,  E.  Crane,  A.  Billinj^^s,  J.  A.  Baughman, 
M.  Simpson,  A.  Wiley,  E.  R.  Ames,  J.  Miller,  C.  W.  Riiter,  A. 
Wood,  A.  Eddy,  J.  Havens,  B.  Weed,  H.  W.  Reed,  J.  T.  Mitchell, 
P.  Akers,  P.  Cartwright,  A.  Griffith,  J.  Bear,  N.  J.  B.  Morgan, 
J.  A.  Collins,  J.  Davis,  J.  P.  Durbin,  L.  Scott,  I.  Winner,  J.  S. 
Porter,  J.  K.  Shaw— 103. 

Nays.  C.  W.  Carpenter,  John  G.  Dow,  R.  Boyd,  G.  Smith,  , 
.T.  Stamper,  J.  Van  Cleve,  N.  G.  Berryman,  W.  W.  Redman, 
.1.  C.  Berryman,  J.  M.  Jameson,  H.  B.  Bascom,  W.  Gunn,  H.  H. 
Kavanaugh,  E.  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush,  E.  F. 
Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  Stringtield,  R.  Paine,  J.  B.  McFerrin,  A. 
L.  P.Green,  T.  Maddin,  G.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  William 
M'Mahon,T.  Joyner,  J.  C.Parker,  W.  P.  Ratclifle,  A.  Hunter, 
L.  Fowler,  William  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M. 
Rogers,  William  Murrah,  J.  Boring,  G.  Garrett,  J.  Hamilton, 
G.  F.  Pierce,  L.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Pafivs,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans, 
A.  B.  Longstreet,  William  Capers,  W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Betts, 
S.  Dunwodv,  H.  A.  C.  Walker,  Peter  Doub,  B.  T.  Blake,  J. 
Early,  L.  M.  Lee,  W.  A.  Smith,  T.  Crowder,  H.  Sheer,  C.  B. 
Tippett,  T.  B.  Sargent,  J.  A.  Gere,  G.  Hildt,  T.  J.  Thompson, 
H.  White,  I.  T.  Cooper,  W.  Cooper,  T.  Neal,  T.  Sovereign— 67. 

This  resolution  allowed  one  party  of  the  North  still  to  regard 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  as  inandatori),  and  the  other 
to  consider  it  merely  advisory.  And  up  to  the  present  time  not 
the  smallest  advance  has  been  made  toward  any  settled  or 
agreed  understanding  on  the  part  of  the  majority,  as  to  the 
true  nature  and  intention  of  the  action  again.st  Bishop  Andrew. 

June  7th.  Dr.  Paine,  chairman  of  the  select  committee  of 
nine,  reported  the  following  Plan  of  Separation: — 

"  The  select  committee  of  nine  to  consider  and  report  on  the 
declaration  of  the  delegates  from  the  Conferences  of  the  slave- 
holding  states,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  report: 

"  W  hereas,  a  declaration  has  been  presented  to  this  General 
Conference,  with  the  signatures  oi Jifiy-onc  delegates  of  the 
body  from  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  representing  that,  for  various  reasons  enumerated,  the 
objects  and  purposes  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church 
organization  cannot  be  successfully  accomplislied  by  them 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Conference  as  now 
constituted;  and 

"  Whereas,  in  the  event  of  a  separation,  a  contingency  to 
Nvjiich  the  declaration  asks  attention  as  not  improbable,  we 
esteem  it  the  duty  of  this  General  Conference   to  meet  the 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  91 

emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity; 
therefore, 

"  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  General  Conference  assembled, 

"  1.  That,  should  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connection,  the  follo\\-ing  rule  shall  be  observed  with  regard  to 
the  Northern  boundary  of  such  connection: — All  the  societies, 
stations,  and  Conferences  adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South, 
by  a  ^'ote  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said  societies, 
stations,  and  Conferences,  shall  remain  under  the  unmolested 
pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church;  and  the  ministers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  in  no  wise  attempt  to  organ- 
ize Churches  or  societies  within  the  limits  of  the  Church  South, 
nor  shall  they  attempt  to  exercise  any  pastoral  oversight  therein; 
it  being  understood  that  the  ministry  of  the  South  reciprocally  ' 
observe  the  same  rule  in  relation  to  stations,  societies,  and 
Conferences,  adhering,  by  vote  of  a  majority,  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church;  provided  also,  that  this  rule  shall  apply  only 
to  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences  bordering  on  the  line  of 
division,  and  not  to  interior  charges,  which  shall  in  all  cases 
be  left  to  the  care  of  that  Church  within  whose  territory  they 
are  situated. 

''2.  That  ministers,  local  and  traveling,  of  every  grade  and 
office  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they  prefer, 
remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame,  attach  themselves 
to  the  Church  South. 

"  3.  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
in  General  Conference  assembled.  That  we  recommend  to  all 
the  Annual  Conferences,  at  their  first  approaching  sessions,  to 
authorize  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  that  the 
first  clause  shall  read  thus:  '  They  shall  not  appropriate  the 
produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to 
any  other  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling, 
.'supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  \vorn-out  preachers,  their 
wives,  widows,  and  children,  and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may 
be  determined  upon  by  the  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of 
the  General  Conference.' 

"4.  That  whenever  the  Annual  Conferences,  by  a  vote  of 
three-fourths  of  all  their  members  voting  on  the  third  resolution, 
shall  have  concurred  in  the  recommendation  to  alter  the  sixth 
restrictive  article,  the  Agents  at  New  York  and  Cincinnati  shall, 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  deliver  over  to 
any  authorized  agent  or  appointee  of  the  Church  South,  should 
one  be  organized,  all  notes  and  book  accounts  against  the 
ministers,  church  members,  or  citizens,  within  its  l)oundaries, 
with   authority  to  collect  the  same  for  the  sole  use   of  the 


92  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

Southern  Church,  and  that  said  Agents  also  convey  to  aforesaid 
agent  or  appointee  of  the  South,  all  the  real  estate,  and  assign 
to  him  all  the  pi'operty,  including  presses,  sto  k,  and  all  right 
and  interest  connected  with  the  piinting  establishtnents  at 
Charleston,  Richinond,  and  Nashville,  which  now  belong  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  5.  That  when  the  Annual  Conferf^nces  shall  have  approved 
the  aforesaid  change  in  the  sixth  restiictive  article,  there  shall 
be  transferred  to  the  above  agent  for  the  Southern  Church  so 
much  of  the  capital  and  produce  of  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern as  will,  with  the  notes,  book  accounts,  presses,  &c.,  men- 
tioned in  the  last  resolution,  bear  the  same  proportion  to  the 
whole  property  of  said  Concern  that  the  traveling  preachers  in 
the  Southern  Church  shall  bear  to  all  the  traveling  ministers  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chur.-h;  the  division  to  be  made  on 
the  basis  of  the  number  of  traveling  preachers  in  the  forth- 
coming iMinutes. 

"  6.  That  the  above  transfer  shall  be  in  the  form  of  annual 
payments  of  !$25,00!>  per  annum,  and  specifically  in  stock  of 
the  Book  Concern,  and  in  Southern  notes  and  accounts  due  the 
establishment,  and  accruing  after  the  lirst  ti  ansfer  mentioned 
above;  and  until  the  payments  are  made,  the  Southern  Church 
shall  share  in  all  the  nett  profits  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the 
proportion  that  the  amount  due  them,  or  in  arrears,  bears  to 
all  the  property  of  the  Concern. 

"  7.  That  iXathan  Bangs,  George  Peck,  and  James  B.  Finley 
be,  and  they  are  hereby  appointed  commissioners  to  act  in 
concert  with  the  same  number  of  commissioners  appointed  by 
the  Southern  oi'ganization,  (.--hould  one  be  formed.)  to  estimate 
the  amount  which  will  fall  due  to  the  South  by  the  preceding 
rule,  and  to  have  full  powers  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole 
arrangements  proposed  with  regard  to  the  divi.^ion  of  property, 
should  the  separation  take  place.  And  if  by  any  means  a 
vacancy  occurs  in  this  board  of  commissioners,  the  Book  Com- 
mittee at  New  York  shall  fill  said  vacancy. 

''  8.  That  whenever  any  agents  of  the  Southern  Church  are 
clothed  with  legal  authority  or  corporate  power  to  act  in  the 
premises,  the  Agents  at  New  York  are  hereby  authorized  and 
directed  to  act  in  concert  with  said  Southern  agents,  so  as  to 
give  the  provisions  of  these  resolutions  a  legally  binding  force. 

"  9.  That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  meeting  houses,  parsonages,  colleges,  schools,  Conference 
("unds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every  kind  within  the  limits  of  the 
Southern  organization,  shall  be  forever  free  from  any  claim  set 
up  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  this 
resolution  can  be  of  force  in  the  premises. 

'•  10.  That  the  Church  so  formed  in  the  South  shall  have  a 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  93 

common  right  to  use  all  the  copy-rights  in  possession  of  the 
Book  Concerns  at  New  York  and  Cincinnati,  at  the  time  of  the 
settlement  by  the  commissoners. 

"11.  That  the  Book  Agents  at  New  York  be  directed  to 
make  such  compensation  to  the  Conferences  tSouth,  for  their 
dividend  from  the  Chartered  Fund,  as  the  commissioners  above 
provided  for  shall  agree  upon. 

'^  12.  That  the  Bishops  be  respectfully  requested  to  lay  that 
part  of  this  report  requiring  the  action  of  the  Annual  Confef- 
ences  before  them  as  soon  as  possible,  beginning  with  the  New 
York  Conference." 

.Tune  8th.     The  Plan  was  taken  up,  and 

"  Dr.  Elliot  moved  its  adoption,  and  would  explain  his  Views 
on  the  subject  without  attempting  to  approach  debate.  He 
had  had  the  opportunity  of  examining  it,  and  had  done  so 
narrowly.  He  believed  it  would  insure  the  purposes  designed, 
and  would  be  for  the  best  interests  of  the  Church.  It  was  his 
firm  opinion  that  this  was  a  proper  course  for  them  to  pm'sue, 
in  conformity  with  the  Scriptures,  and  the  best  analogies  they 
could  collect  from  the  ancient  Churches,  as  well  as  from  the 
best  organized  modern  Churches.  All  history  did  not  furnish 
an  example  of  so  large  a  body  of  Christians  remaining  in  such 
close  and  unbroken  connection  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  It  Avas  now  found  necessary  to  separate  this  large 
body,  for  it  was  becoming  unwieldy.  He  referred  to  the 
Churches  at  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem,  which, 
though  they  continued  as  one,  were  at  least  as  distinct  as  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  be  if  the  suggested  sepa- 
ration took  place.  The  Church  of  England  was  one  under 
the  Bishops  of  Canterbury  and  York,  connected  and  yet  dis- 
tinct. In  his  own  mind  it  had  been  for  years  perfectly  clear 
that  to  this  conclusion  they  must  eventually  come.  Were  the 
question  that  now  unhappily  agitated  the  body  elf  ad  and  buried, 
there  would  be  good  reason  for  passing  the  resolutions  con- 
tained in  that  report.  As  to  their  representation  in  that  Gen- 
eral Conference,  one  out  of  twenty  was  but  a  meagre  repre- 
isentation,  and  to  go  on  as  they  had  done,  it  would  soon  be  one 
out  of  thirty.  And  the  body  was  now  too  larga  to  do  business 
advantageously.  The  measure  contemplated  was  not  schism, 
but  separation  for  their  mutual  convenience  and  prosperity." 

Mr.  Griffith  opposed  the  measure,  and  denied  the  power  of 
the  General  Conference  to  divide  the  Church. 

Mr.  Cartwright  thought  the  measure  a  wicked  one,  and  that 
it  robbed  both  North  and  South  of  their  rights.  "  From  the  days 
of  O'Kelly  down  to  the  last  Scottite  disturbances,  God  had  pro- 
vided a  trash-trap  to  take  away  the  scum.^''  He  was  willing  to 
lay  the  whole  matter  before  the  people  for  four  years,  and  then 


94  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

abide  the  result.  Dr.  Paine  advocated  the  measure.  Dr. 
Lucky  said, — 

"  He  rei^arded  the  resolution  as  provisionary  and  prelimi- 
nary, settling  nothing  at  present,  but  providing,  in  an  amicable 
and  proper  Avay,  for  such  action  as  it  might  hereafter  be  ne- 
cessary to  take.  He  hoped  such  necessity  would  never  arise, 
and  that  Southern  brethren  would  not  find  it  necessary  to  leave 
them.  Reference  had  been  made  to  secession,  &c.  But  Avas 
it  hot  better  that  they  should  separate  than  have  a  continuation 
of  strife  and  of  warfare?  The  danger  apprehended  by  his 
friend  from  Illinois  existed  only  in  the  fires  of  his  imagination. 
He  (Dr.  L.)  had  said  privately  and  frequently,  that  if  the  sep- 
aration were  necessary,  it  ought  to  be  amicably  and  constitu- 
tionally effected,  and  there  was  no  intention  of  doing  it  other- 
wise. Allusion  had  been  made  to  the  radicalism  that  had  dis- 
turbed the  Church  some  years  ago,  but  that  had  no  affinity  with 
the  present  case .  He  granted  that  Mr.  Wesley  had  contended  at 
one  time  for  the  unity  of  the  Methodist  body  throughout  the 
world,  but  he  subsequently  saw  it  necessary  to  permit  the  con- 
nection in  the  United  States  to  separate,  and  had  it  not  been 
for  the  best?" 

"  Dr.  Bangs  explained  the  composition  of  the  committee,  as 
formed  by  three  from  the  South,  three  from  the  middle  States, 
and  three  from  the  North.  They  were  also  instructed,  by  a  re- 
solution of  the  Conference,  how  to  act  in  the  premises;  that 
if  they  could  not  adjust  the  difficulties  amicably,  they  were  to 
provide  for  separation  if  they  could  do  so  constitutionally. — 
Under  such  instructions  the  committee  went  out  and  proceeded 
to  interchange  their  thoughts  upon  the  subject.  Great  diffi- 
culties arose,  which  were  revolved  in  their  minds,  and  after 
two  days  of  close  labor,  after  minute  inspection  and  revision 
of  every  sentence,  they  had  presented  this  report,  from  which 
the  Conference  would  see  that  they  had  at  least  obeyed  their 
instructions,  and  had  met  the  constitutional  difficulty  by  send- 
ing round  to  the  Annual  Conferences  that  portion  of  the  report 
which  required  their  concurrence.  The  speakers  who  have 
opposed  that  report  have  taken  entirely  erroneous  views  of  it. 
It  did  not  speak  of  division — the  word  had  been  carefully 
avoided  through  the  whole  document — it  only  said,  "  in  the 
event  of  a  separation  taking  place,"  throwing  the  responsi- 
bility from  oft"  the  shoulders  of  the  General  Conference  and 
upon  those  who  should  say  that  such  a  separation  was  neces- 
sary. He  hoped  the  time  Avould  never  come.  But  Avhat  was 
the  true  course  for  men  brought  into  difficulties?  Why,  there 
was  an  old  adage — and  he  knew  not  that  it  was  any  the  worse 
for  its  age— of  two  evils  choose  the  least — the  choice  was 
between  the  violent  separation  of  the  South  and  its  peaceable 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOl'TH.  95 

and  amicable  separation;  and  which  was  the  lesser  evil?  lie 
need  not  answer,  for  the  response  was  already  in  every  man's 
breast.  Objections  had  been  made  on  the  ground  of  the  reso- 
lutions interfering  with  liberty  of  conscience  on  the  part  of  tlie 
members,  by  forcing  them  to  take  a  position  which  they  might 
not  wish  to  take.  That  was  a  groundless  objection  altogether. 
The  laws,  discipline,  doctrines,  government,  all  would  be  the 
same,  and  they  should  be  as  warm  in  their  affection  toward 
each  other  as  they  are  now.  [Amen,  in  a  very  earnest  and 
feeling  tone  from  Dr.  Capers.]  Allusion  had  been  made  to  the 
course  pursued  by  ]\Ir.  Wesley,  in  reference  to  the  Methodist 
Church  in  the  United  vStates.  The  same  would  apply  to  the 
Methodist  societies  in  Ireland.  They  had  an  independent 
Conference." 

Several  voices.     No,  no. 

Mr.  T.  B.  Sargent.  "  They  have  a  separate  relation  just  as 
the  government  of  Ireland  differs  from  the  government  of  Eng- 
land,—it  is  indeed  adapted  to  the  civic  government." 

Dr.  Bangs.  "  That  is  just  what  we  want.  The  South  ask  a 
separate  Conference,  adapted  to  the  institutions  of  that  por- 
tion of  the  country.  Another  evil  was  that  there  ^vas  a  di- 
versity of  sentiment  among  the  border  Conferences;  if  the 
line  proposed  by  the  resolutions  Avere  drawn  it  would  lessen 
the  evil  and  perhaps  remove  it  out  of  the  way  altogether.  He 
(Dr.  B.)  had  been  a  traveling  preacher  about  forty-four  years, 
and  gloried  in  the  belief  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
Avas  one;  he  had  done  all  in  his  power  to  keep  it  so.  He 
hoped  that  the  providence  of  God  would  overrule  the  present 
adverse  circumstances  for  good,  but  if  they  must  separate,  was 
it  right  to  deprive  their  brethren  of  the  South  of  their  just 
rights?  Would  it  be  right  for  the  majority  to  deprive  the  mi- 
nority of  one  iota  of  their  rights,  temporal  or  spiritual?  He 
"Would  not  do  it,  and  he  hoped  the  Conference  would  come  to  a 
unanimous  adoption  of  the  report." 

"  Mr.  Filmore  explained  still  further  the  constitution  and  la- 
bors of  the  committee,  and  went  on  to  say  tl*at  the  design  of 
God  in  raising  up  the  Methodists  was  to  spread  Scriptural  holi- 
ness through  the  land.  The  brethren  from  the  South  say,  they 
fear  they  cannot  go  on  doing  this  under  existing  circumstances. 
The  North  say,  if  they  yield  any  of  the  ground  they  have  ta- 
ken, they  shall  throw  impediments  in  their  own  path  in  carry- 
ing out  the  same  object.  Now  Methodism,  as  the  child  of 
Providence,  adjusts  herself,  as  she  has  always  done,  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case — she  proposes  that,  if  these  fears  prove 
well  grounded,  they  divide  into  bands,  and  go  on  spreading 
holiness  through  their  respective  territories;  their  strife,  he  be- 
lieved, would  be  to  excel  in  straight-forward  Weslevan  Meth- 


96  HISTORY    OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

odism.  The  resolutions  do  not  say  that  the  South  must  go, 
shall  go,  will  go,  or  that  an}-  body  Avants  them  to  go;  but 
simply  make  provision  for  such  a  contingency,  and  provide 
that  in  such  case  they  shall  have  all  necessary  munitions  of 
war  for  carr3dng  on  their  holy  enterprise.  He  did  not  think 
there  was  a  man  among  them  Mdio  would  dare  to  lay  his  head 
upon  his  pillow,  if  he  held  from  his  Southern  brethren  one 
cent  of  their  common  funds. 

"  The  report  had  cost  the  committee  three  days  of  close  ap- 
plication, and  the  sub-committee  had  worked  by  night  as  well 
as  by  day.  Every  sentiment  in  the  report  had  been  sifted, 
and  every  word  weighed,  and  the  committee  had  brought  it 
in  understanding  what  it  was.  He  M^as  aware  it  was  the 
w^ork  of  human  hands;  but  let  that  General  Conference  pro- 
pose fifty  amendments,  and  fifty  to  one  they  would  amend  it 
for  the  worse." 

"Mr.  Finley  could  see  in  the  report  no  proposition  to  divide 
the  Church.  If  he  saw  such  a  proposal  he  should  stop  at  the 
threshold.  Nor  did  he  see  anything  unconstitutional  in  it. 
The  constitution  did  not  require  them  to  send  abroad  a  propo- 
sition to  divide  the  Church,  and  it  vv'ould,  therefore,  be  uncon- 
stitutional to  send  such  a  proposition  to  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences. And  now  he  expected  his  brother  from  Illinois,  (Cart- 
Avright)  and  himself,  would  tear  the  blanket  between  them, 
they  having  got  hold  on  opposite  sides. 

"  The  parties  voting  on  ea.ch  side  of  the  great  question  stood 
precisely  alike.  There  was  a  great  gulf  between  them,  and 
he  wished  there  was  middle  ground  on  which  both  could 
stand.  His  heart  w^ould  have  gladl}'  moved  further  if  he  covild 
have  secured  what  he  wanted;  but  he  and  his  friends  had  gone 
as  far  as  the  safety  of  the  work  Avould  allow  them.  There 
was  one  point  that  had  not  been  touched  yet.  Mr.  Wesley 
separated  the  American  Church  from  the  English  Church. 
And  in  1824-8  there  was  an  application  made  by  the  Canada 
Conference,  to  set  them  oft' as  a  distinct  Church;  and  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  told  them  they  had  no  power  to  do  so,  but 
gave  them  liberty  to  do  just  what  they  now  proposed  to  do 
Avith  the  South.  They  agreed,  that  if  they  went  oft',  and  set 
up  for  themselves,  we  would  Authorize  one  of  our  Bishops  to 
ordain  a  man  for  them,  if  they  should  elect  one  to  the 
episcopacy." 

Mr.  Cartwright.  "  We  did  not  give  them  any  part  of  tln^ 
funds." 

Dr.  Bangs.   "The  New  York  Conference  gave  them  $10,000." 

Mr.  Finley.  "  The  General  Conference  voted  that  the  New 
York  Conference  should  make  that  division,  and  we  are  now 
doing:  nothing  more  than  we  did  then." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  ♦     Ov 

A  call  being  made  for  the  reading  of  the  Journal  on  this  point, 

"Mr.  Hamline  took  the  floor,  by  consent,  until  the  joiu-nals 
were  examined.  He  explained  the  action  of  the  committee 
in  reference  to  the  sixth  restrictive  article.  When  the  first 
committee  met  they  had  before  them  a  paper,  which  proposed 
a  new  form  or  division  of  the  Church.  The  committee  thought 
there  were  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  a  proposition.  One 
provision  was  to  send  it  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  but  that 
Avas  unconstitutional  and  revolutionary  in  its  character;  and 
w^hen  their  votes  came  back  the  General  Conference  w^ould 
have  no  more  authority  than  they  had  now.  Why  then  send 
it?  The  Book  Concern  is  chartered  in  behalf  of  the  General 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States;  and  if  they 
did  separate  until  only  one  State  remained,  still  Methodism 
would  remain  the  same,  and  it  would  still  be  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States.  But  if  they  sent  out 
to  the  Annual  Conferences  to  alter  one  restrictive  article  it 
would  be  constitutional,  and  to  divide  the  Book  Concern  so 
that  they  might  be  honest  men  and  ministers.  The  resolution 
goes  on  to  make  provision,  if  the  Annual  Conferences  concur, 
for  the  security  and  efficiency  of  the  Southern  Conferences,  for 
the  Methodist  Church  would  embrace  them  in  its  fraternal  arms, 
tendering  to  them  fraternal  feelings  and  the  temporalities  to 
which  they  were  entitled.  And  the  committee  thought  it  could 
not  be  objected  to  on  the  ground  of  constitutionality.  He,  for 
one,  vi^ould  wish  to  have  his  name  recorded  affirming  them  to 
be  brethren,  if  they  found  they  must  separate.  God  forbid 
that  they  should  go  as  an  arm  torn  out  of  the  body,  leaving 
the  point  of  juncture  all  gory  and  ghastly!  But  let  them  go 
as  brethren  'beloved  in  the  Lord,'  and  let  us  hear  their  voice 
responsive  claiming  us  for  brethren — let  us  go  and  preach  Jesus 
to  them,  and  they  come  and  preach  Jesus  to  us." 

Dr.  Bond  earnestly  contended  against  giving  border  societies, 
stations,  &c.,  the  right  of  choosing  to  which  side  they  would 
belong,  and  insisted  on  following  conference  lines,  requiring  all 
on  the  North  side  to  adhere  to  the  North,  and  all  on  the  South 
side  to  adhere  to  the  South.  "  I  do  beseech  brethren,"  said  the 
Doctor,  "  to  weigh  well  this  matter,  and  that  you  adhere  to  the 
conference  lines,  as  they  now  stand, «/?//  then  we  shall  have  peace."' 

Mr.  Collins  said,  he  belonged  to  a  part  slaveholding  and  part 
non-slaveholding  country.  He,  in  connection  with  others, 
sought  some  common  ground,  on  which  they  could  all  meet  and 
unite  in  kind  and  fraternal  feelings.  They  were  not  able  it 
seemed  to  come  to  that  ground.  He  had  mentioned  at  the' 
time  of  the  vofe  on  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  that  he  should  move  a 
rfe.-consideration;  and  he  had  done  so  with  intention,  that  if  any 
measure  could  be  proposed  which  would  render  that  action 

9 


P8  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

unnecessary,  they  might  recall  it.  He  had  seen  no  such 
measure  yet,  and  therefore  had  not  moved  a  re-consideration. 
lie  thought  the  report  contained  the  best  proposition  under  the 
cii'cumstances,  and  they  were  not  prepared  to  throw  out  any 
thing-  which  would  tend  to  heal  the  breach.  He  hoped  they 
would  not  come  to  separation  at  all.  The  Southern  brethren 
had  taken  such  ground  before  them,  and  they  were  well  known 
to  be  men  of  integrity,  as  well  as  talents  and  piety,  and  had 
taken  a  strong  hold  upon  their  people,  so  that  if  the  evil  could  be 
averted  he  believed  it  would  be.  But,  if  it  must  come,  let  there 
be  a  jjro  rata  division  of  the  concern.  The  preachers  would 
have  to  let  the  members  decide  the  question  for  themselves. 

Mr.  Porter  advocated  the  resolutions  briefly. 

Mr.  Sandford  opposed  the  Plan  as  tending  to  encourage 
separation. 

Some  remarks  were  made  and  amendments  suggested,  which 
seemed  to  assume  that  the  Annual  Conferences  must  first  vote 
to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  before  the  other  parts  of 
the  Plan  of  Separation  could  go  into  efiect.  To  correct  this 
impression,  Dr.  Winans  gave  the  history  of  the  matter  in 
committee.  He  said,  "  It  would  be  observed  that  there  was 
only  one  provision  of  the  whole  report  that  went  to  the  Annual 
Conferences;  and  that  merely  authorized,  should  occasion  occur, 
the  appropriation  of  the  proceeds  of  the  Book  Concern  otherwise 
than  was  noM'  appropriated.  They  were  not  sending  round  to 
the  Annual  Conferences  any  proposition  in  which  the  action  of 
the  tSouth  in  reference  to  the  separation  was  concerned.  The 
only  proposition  was  that  they  might  have  liberty,  if  necessary, 
to  organize  a  separate  Conference;  and  it  was  important  that  the 
South  should  know,  at  an  early  period,  that  they  had  such  lib- 
erty, in  order  to  allay  the  intense  excitement  which  prevailed  in 
that  porotin  of  the  Avork." 

"Mr.  Hamline  would  state  the  views  of  the  committee  on 
the  subject.  They  had  carefully  avoided  presenting  any 
resolution  which  would  embrace  the  idea  of  separation  or 
division.  The  article  which  was  referred  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences had  not  necessarily  any  connection  with  division.  It 
was  thought,  as  complaints  were  abroad  respecting  the  present 
mode  of  appropriating  the  proceeds  of  the  Book  Concern,  it 
A\()u]d  be  for  the  general  good  that  the  power  to  appropriate 
such  proceeds  should  be  put  in  the  power  of  a  two-thirds  vote, 
instead  of  in  the  power  of  a  mere  majority,  thus  making  it 
more  difficult  to  make  aAvrong  appropriation.  And  the  occa- 
sion of  this  report  was  taken  hold  of  by  the  committee  to  make 
it  more  difficult  to  misappropriate  the  funds,  in  which  they 
believed  they  should  serve  both  the  particular  object  of  the 
report  and  the  general  good  of  the  Methodist  E.  Church." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH. 


# 


Mr.  Filmore  said,  "  the  desigri  of  the  committee  was  to  put 
a  restriction  upon  the  General  Conference,  and  to  make  a  two- 
thirds  vote  necessary  to  all  appropriations  of  the  produc-e  of 
the  Book  Concern,  instead  of  a  majority." 

The  remarks  of  these  members  of  the  committee,  with  the 
action  of  the  Conference  in  refusing  any  amendment  or  modifi- 
cation to  suit  an  opposite  view  of  the  subject,  show  most 
conclusively  that  the  design  was  not  to  make  any  other  part 
of  the  Plan  of  separation  dependent  upon  a  change  of  the 
restrictive  rule. 

The  jirst  resolution  in  the  Plan  was  then  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  147  to  22;  and  after  a  re-consideration  of  the  vote,  for  the 
})urpose  of  authorizing  the  Soutlicrn  Conferences  instead  of  the 
Dclei^ates  to  decide  on  the  necessity  of  a  separation,  the  vote  was 
again  taken,  and  stood  ayes  135,  noes  15,  as  follows: — 

Yeas.— N.  Bangs,  P.  Rice,  G.  Peck,  S.  D.  Ferguson,  M.  Rich- 
ardson, F.  Upham,  P.  Townsend,  .T.  J.  Porter,  D.  S.  King,  P. 
Crandall,  C.  Adams,  G.  Pickering,  M.  Hill,  E.  Robinson,  D.  B. 
Randall,  C.  W.  Morse,  G.  Webber,  E.  Scott,  S.  Kelly,  J.  Per- 
kins, J.  G.  Dow,  J.  Spaulding,  C.  D.  Cahoon,  W.  D.  Cass,  T. 
Seymour,  J.  M.  Wever,  J.  Covel,  T.  Spicer,  S.  Coleman,  .T.  B. 
Houghtaling,  J.  T.  Peck,  A.  Adams,  G.  Baker,  W.  W.  Ninde, 
N.  Rounds,  D.  A.  Shepherd,  E.  Bowen,  G.  Filmore,  S.  Lucky, 

F.  G.  Hibbard,  S.  Seager,  A.  Abell,  W.  Hosmer,  .T.  B.  Alvei-son, 
J.  J.  Steadman,  G.  W.  Clark,  J.  Robinson,  W.  Hunter,  H.  J. 
Clark,  J.  Spencer,  S.  Elliott,  R.  Boyd,  J.  Drummond,  C.  Elliott, 
W.  H.  Raper,  E.  W.  Sehon,  J.  M.  Trimble,  .1.  B.  Finley,  Z. 
Connell,  E.  Thompson,  E.  Yocum,  W.  Runnells,  G.  Smith,  A. 
Billings,  J.  Baughman,  M.  Simpson,  A.  Wilev,  E.  R.  Ames,  C. 
W.  Ruter,  A.  Wood,  A.  Eddy,  B.  Weed,. I.  Sinclair,  H.  W.  Reed, 
J.  T.  Mitchell,  P.  Akers,  J.  Stamper,  J.  Vancleve,  N.  G.  Berry- 
man,  W.  W.  Redman,  J.  C.  Berryman,  J.  M.  Jamieson,  H.  B. 
Bascom,  W.  Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  E.  Stevenson,  B.  T. 
Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush,  E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  Stringfield, 
R.  Paine,  J.  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin,  G.  W. 
D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  W.  McMahon,  T.  Jovner,  J.  C.  Parker, 
W.  P.  Ratclifle,  A.  Hunter,  L.  Fowler,  .T.  Clarke,  W.  Winans, 
B.  M.  Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers,  W.  Murrah,  J.  Boring, 

G.  Garrett,  J.  Hamilton,  L.  Pierce,  G.  F.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks, 
J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet,  W.  Capers,  W.  M. 
Wightman,  C.  Betts,  S.  Dunwodv,  H.  A.  C.  Walker,  .L  Jamie- 
.son,P.  Doub,  B.  T.  Blake,  .T.  Early,  L.  M.  Lee,  W.  A.  Smith,  T. 
Crowder,  PL  Slicer,  N.  J.  B.  Morgan,  C.  B.  Tippett,  T.  B.  Sar- 
gent, J.  A.  Collins,  J.  Davis,  J.  A.  Gere,  G.  Hildt,  .1.  P.  Durbin, 
T.  .T.  Thompson,  H.  White,  I.  T.  Cooper,  L.  Scott,  W.  Cooper, 
J.  S.Porter,  T.  Neal,  T.  Sovereign— 135. 


'   100  HISTORY   OF   TJIE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

Nays. — P.  P.  Sandford,  S.  Martindale,  J.  Lovejoy,  S.  Benton, 
J.  Ilobart,  H.  Nickerson,  A.  D.  Peck,  J.  M.  Snyder,  H.  F.  Row, 

D.  Holmes,  J.  H.  Power,  A.  Poe,  P.  Cartwright,  A.  Griffith,  J. 
Bear — 15. 

The  second  resolution  was  adopted  by  one  hundred  and  thir- 
ty-nine affirmative  to  seventeen  negative  votes. 

The  tJiird  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  following  vote: — 
Yeas.— N.  Bangs,  P.  Rice,  G.  Peck,  S.  D.  Ferguson,  M.  Rich- 
ardson, F.  Upham,  P.  Townsend,  J.  Porter,  D.  S.  King,  P. 
a-andall,  C.  Adams,  G.  Pickering,  M.  Hill,  E.  Robinson,  D.  B. 
.Randall,  C.  W.  Morse,  G.  Webber,  E.  Scott,  S.  Kelly,  J.  Per- 
kins, J.  G.  Dow,  C.  D.  Gaboon,  W.  D.  Cass,  T.  Seymour,  J.  M. 
Wever,  J.  Covel,  T.  Spicer,  S.  Coleman,  J.  B.  Houghtaling,  J. 
T.  Peck,  A.  Adams,  G.  Baker,  W.  W.  Ninde,  N.'  Rounds,  D. 
A.  Shepherd,  E.  Bowen,  G.  Filmore,  S.  Luckey,  F.  G.  Hibbard, 
S.  Seagre,  A.  Abell,  W.  Hosmer,  J.  B.  Alverson,  J.  .J.  Steadman, 
G.  W.  Clarke,  J.  Robinson,  W.  Hunter,  H.  J.  Clark,  J.  Spencer, 
S.  Elhott,  R.  Boyd,  J.Drummond,  C.  Elhott,  W.  PI.  Raper,  E. 
W.  Sehon,  J.  M.  Trimble,  J.  B.  Finley,  Z.  Connell,  E.  Thomp- 
son, E.  Yocum,  W.  Runnells,  G.  Smith,  A.  Billings,  J.  A.  Baugh- 
man,  M.  Simpson,  A.  Wiley,  E.  R.  Ames,  C.  W.  Ruter,  A.  Wood, 
A.  Eddy,  B.  Weed,  J.  Sinclair,  H.  W.  Reed,  J.  T.  Mitchell,  P. 
Akers,  J.  Stamper,  J.  Vancleve,  N.  G.  Berryman,  W.  W.  Red- 
man, J.  C.  Berryman,  J.  M.  Jameson,  H.  B.  Bascom,  W.  Gunn, 
H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  E.  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush, 

E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  Stringfield,  R.  Paine,  J.  B.  McFerrin, 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin,  G.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.Moody,  W. 
M'Mahon,T.  Joyner,  J.  C.  Parker,  W.  P.  Ratclifle,  A.  Hunter, 
L.  Fowler,  J.  Clark,  W.  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M. 
Rogers,  W.  Murrah,  J.  Boring,  G.  Garrett,  J.  Hamilton,  L, 
Pierce,  G.  F.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans, 
A.  B.  Longstreet,  W.  Capers,  W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Betts,  S. 
Dunwody,  PI.  A.  C.  Walker,  J.  Jamieson,  P.  Doub,  B.  T.  Blake, 
J.  Early,  L.  M.  Lee,  W.  A.  Smith,  T.  Crowder,  H.  Sheer,  N. 
J.  B.  Morgan,  C.  B.  Tippett,  T.  B.  Sargent,  J.  A.  Collins,  J. 
Davis,  J.  A.  Gere,  G.  Hildt,  J.  P.  Durbin,  T.  J.  Thompson,  H. 
White,  I.  T.  Cooper,  L.  Scott,  W.  Cooper,  J.  S.Porter,  T.  Neal, 
T.  Sovereign — 147. 

Nays. — P.  P.  Sandford,  J.  Lovejoy,  J.  M.  Snyder,  S.  Comfort, 
H.  F.  Row,  D.  Holmes,  J.  Bain,  J.  H.  Power,  P.  Cartwi-ight, 
A.  Griffith— 10. 

The  Jif til  resolution  was  adopted — ayes  153,  noes  13.  The 
following  is  the  vote: — 

Yeas.— N.  Bangs,  P.  Rice,  J.  B.  Stratten,  F.  Reed,  S.  D.  Fer- 
guson, S.  Martindale,  F.  Upham,  P.  Townsend,  J.  Porter,  D.  S. 
King,  P.  Crandall,  C.  Adams,  G.  Pickering,  M.  Hill,  E.  Robin- 
son, D.  B.  Randall,  C.  W,  Morse,  J.  Hobart,  H.  Nickerson,  G, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  101 

Webber,  E.  Scott,  S.  Kelly,  J.  Perkins,  J.  G.  Dow,  J.  Spaulding, 
C.  D.  Gaboon,  W.  D.  Cass,  T.  Seymour,  J.  M.  Wever,  J.  Co- 
vel,  T.  Spicer,  J.  B.  Houghtaling-,  J.  T.  Peck,  A.  Adams,  G. 
Baker,  W.  W.  Ninde,  N.  Rounds,  D.  A.  Shepherd,  E.  Bowen, 
G.  Filmore,  S.  Lucky,  A.  Steele,  F.  G.  Hibbard,  S.  Seager,  A. 
Abell,  W.  Hosmcr,  J.  B.  Alverson,  J.  J.  Steadman,  G.  W. 
Clark,  J.  Robinson,  T.  Goodwin,  W.  Hunter,  H.  J.  Clark,  J. 
Spencer,  S.  Elliot,  R.  Bovd,  S.  Wakefield,  J.  Drummond,  C. 
Elliott,  W.  H.  Raper,  E.  W.  Sehon,  J.  M.  Trimble,  J.  B.  Finley. 
Z.  Connell,  E.  Thompson,  A.  Poe,  E.  Yocum,  W.  Runnells, 
A.  Billings,  J.  A.  Baughman,  M.  Simpson,  A.  AViley,  E.  R. 
Ames,  C.  W.  Ruter,  A.  Wood,  A.  Eddy,  B.  Weed,  J.  Sinclair, 
II.  W.  Reed,  J.  T.  Mitchell,  P.  Akers,  J.  Stamper,  J.  Vancleve, 
N.  G.  Berryman,  W.  W.  Redman,  J.  C.  Berryman,  J.  M. 
Jameson,  H.  B.  Bascom,  W.  Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  E.  Ste- 
venson, B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush,  E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton, 
T.  Stringfield,  R.  Paine,  J.  B.  M'Ferrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  T. 
Maddin,  G.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  W.  M'Mahon,  T. 
Jovner,  J.  C.  Parker,  W.  P.  Ratcliffe,  A.  Hunter,  L.  Fowler, 
J.  Clark,  W.  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers,  VV. 
Murrah,  J.  Boring,  G.  Garrett,  J.  Hamilton,  L.  Pierce,  G.  F. 
Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Long- 
street,  W.  Capers,  W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Betts,  S.  Dunwody, 
H.  A.  C.  Walker,  J.  Jamieson,  P.  Doub,  J.  Earlv,  L.  M.  Lee, 
W.  A.  Smith,  T.  Crowder,  H.  Slicer,  N.  J.  B.  Morgan,  C.  B. 
Tippett,  T.  B.  Sargent,  J.  A.  Collins,  J.  Davis,  J.  A.  Gere,  G. 
Hildt,  J.  P.  Durbin,  T.  J.  Thompson,  H.  White,  L  T.  Cooper, 
L.  Scott,  W.  Cooper,  J.  S.  Porter,  T.jVeal,  T.  Sovereign — 153. 

A^AYs. — P.  P.  Sandford,  J.  Lovejoy,  S.  Benton,  H.  Nickerson, 
S.  Comfort,  H.  F.  Row,  D.  Holmes,  J.  H.  Power,  P.  Cartwright. 
A.  GrifEth,  J.  Bear,  J.  M.  Snyder,  J.  Bain — 13. 

The  other  resolutions,  preamble,  &c.,were  adopted  without 
a  division. 

Considering  the  novelty  and  great  importance  of  the  measure, 
th<^  great  unanimity  with  which  it  was  adopted  Mas  veiy 
remarkable;  and  at  the  same  time  highly  creditable  to  the 
justice,  liberality,  and  Christian  spirit  of  the  parties  concerned. 
Throughout  this  protracted  and  most  exciting  discussion,  but 
little  bitterness  of  spirit  or  unkindness  of  language  Avas  in- 
dulged. A  forbearing,  dignified,  and  courteous  manner  char- 
acterized nearly  all  the  speakers  engaged  in  the  debate. 

On  the  10th  of  June — the  last  day  oi'  the  session — Dr.  Dur- 
bin introduced  and  read  the  Reply  to  the  Protest  of  the  mi- 
nority. This  document  it  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  insert  at 
length  in  this  history,  as  it  occupied  generally  the  same  ground 
with  the  leading  speakers  of  the  majority,  and  especially  the 
speech  of  Bishop   Hamline,  which  seems  to  have  been  taken 

9* 


102  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

as  the  basis  of  the  Reply,  as  well  as — more  recently— of  Dr. 
Peck's  book  in  reply  to  Dr.  Bascom.  The  Reply  sets  out  with 
a  professed  intention  to  give  a  statement  of  the  law  and  of  the 
fiwis  in  the  case,  but  is  almost  wholly  argumentative.  Its 
leading  topics  will  be  very  briefly  noted : — It  is  said  the 
proceeding  against  Bishop  Andrew  was  not  judicial  nor  /J7«ii- 
tivc — that  it  neither  deposed  nor  supcnded  him.  Yet  it  contain- 
ed a  direct  intimation  that  if  he  violated  the  injvnclion  laid  on 
him,  that  he  would  have  it  to  account  for  at  the  next  General 
Conference.  [This,  however,  was  stricken  out  before  it  went 
to  record.]  Mach  stress  is  laid  on  the  fact,  that  the  Church 
had  never  elected  a  slaveholding  Bishop,  as  an  argument  not 
only  justifying,  but  requiring  the  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew.  But  the  fact  that  the  first  Methodist  Bishop  was  for 
a  time  a  slaveholder  without  censure,  though  he  became  such 
by  purchase,  is  not  adverted  to  in  the  Reply,  though  certainly 
as  strong  a  case  as  that  of  Bishop  Andrew. 

It  is  said  that  should  the  law  of  Georgia  on  the  subject  of 
emancipation  become  relaxed  or  repealed,  the  rule  of  the  Dis- 
cipline on  slavery  applicable  to  traveling  preachers,  would 
then  "become  imperative  on  Bishop  Andrew."  And  yet  the 
Reply  contains  an  elaborate  argument  intended  to  prove  that 
this  same  law  can  have  no  application  to  a  Bishop  in  any  case, 
whether  considered  in  its  letter  or  its  reason.  And  in  proof  of 
this,  that  the  framers  of  the  law  "did  not  dream"  that  a  Bishop 
would  ever  become  a  slaveholder,  (though  there  had  been  one 
such,  and  though  they  "dreamed"  that  a  Bishop  might  be  guilty 
of  immoi^ality,  and  provided  for  his  trial  on  such  an  accusation,) 
and,  therefore,  no  law  \vas  made  to  cover  a  case  not  likely  ever 
to  occur.  And  further.  Bishops  are  liable«to  be  called  upon  to 
render  service  in  both  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding 
States,  and  should,  therefore,  be  free  from  an  encumbrance 
which  would  render  them  unacceptable  to  a  portion  of  their 
people,  [Seven  or  eight  hundred  other  preachers,  in  the  Con- 
ferences of  mixed  territory  are  under  the  same  liability,  with- 
out, however,  exempting  them  from  obligation  to  that  law,  or 
excluding  them  from  its  protection.] 

To  show  that  the  offence  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  not  a  trivial 
or  venal  one,  it  is  said,  "some  believed — perhaps  few  doubted 
— that  sufficient  ground  existed  for  an  impeachment."  The 
compromise  character  of  the  slavery  law,  in  any  proper  sense, 
is  denied  in  the  Reply;  Bishop  Hamline's  doctrine  that  the  six 
restrictive  rules  are  the  constitution,  is  fully  endorsed,  and  it  is 
even  asserted  that  "the  Church  actually  came  together  to  form 
a  constitution"  in  1808 — a  statement  probably  never  before 
made,  and  a  fact,  though  so  very  important,  probably  never 
before  heard  of  in  that  form. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  103 

It  is  argued  that  the  Church  is  not  pLaced  in  antagonism 
with  State  laws  by  such  action  as  that  against  Bishop  Andrew, 
because  the  laws  of  slaveholding  States  do  not  compel  ministers 
to  become  slaveholders,  but  only  permit  it,  and  that  in  like  man- 
ner, some  of  them  permit  gambling,  theatres  and  grogshops. 
The  committee  omit  to  state  that  the  laws  which  permit  a  man 
to  attend  theatres  or  keep  a  grogshop,  also  freely  permit  him 
to  cease  from  that  course  at  any  time,  and  that  the  law  of 
Georgia,  though  it  ordinarily  compels  no  mart  to  become  a 
slaveholder,  (though  it  may  make  him  such  without  his  con- 
sent, which  is  not  true  of  the  other  case,)  \ei  having  become 
such,  it  does  not  permit  him  to  cease  the  relation  without  com- 
mitting a  penal  offence,  and  effecting  the  re-enslavement  of 
the  object  of  his  benevolent  action.  It  is  also  denied  that  the 
episcopacy  is  a  co-ordinate  department  of  the  government. 
And  following  Bishop  Ilamline  as  the  committee  do,  they 
could  reach  no  other  conclusion;  for  as  he  gives  supremacy  to 
the  General  Conference  in  all  the  departments  of  government, 
the  idea  of  a  co-ordinate  department  in  any  other  hands  is 
utterly  excluded.  Along  with  this  reduction  of  episcopacy, 
we  have  of  course,  a  proportionate  elevation  of  the  powers  of 
the  General  Conference,  giving  full  control  of  the  episcopal 
office  to  the  extent  of  suspending  or  deposing  without  trial  or 
other  formality  merely  by  the  will  of  a  majority  of  that  body. 

Such,  briefly,  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Repl3\  There  were 
others  also,  but  so  obviously  unmethodistical  that  the  commit- 
tee consented  to  strike  them  from  the  document  before  going 
to  record. 

The  Reply  caused  some  excitement,  and  especially  the  mo- 
tion to  adopt  it.  The  whole  affair  was  new:  a  Reply  to  a  Pro- 
test was  without  precedent, — the  doctrines  of  the  Reply  w^ere 
heard  at  that  Conference  for  the  first  time,  and  the  idea  of 
adopting  as  the  act  of  the  Conference  a  Reply  to  a  Protest  of 
the  minority,  which  it  was  their  right  to  make  and  have  re- 
corded without  any  vote  in  the  case,  was  entirely  novel.  But 
while  some  of  the  Southern  delegates  opposed  the  adoption, 
with  views  such  as  are  alluded  to  above,  others  were  desirous 
that  if  such  were  really  the  doctrines  of  the  North,  they  should 
be  officially  avowed  by  such  an  act.  The  motion,  however, 
was  varied,  and  it  was  proposed  to  spread  the  Reply  on  the 
Journal  and  print  it,  and  this  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote  of 
116  ayes  to  26  noes. 

Here  ended  General  Conference  action  on  the  subject,  and 
the  Conference  immediately  adjoui'ned  sine  die. 


104  mSTORY  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 


CHAPTER  III. 

From  th£  adjournment  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  to  the 
meeting  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  in  May,  1845. 

The  General  Conference  had  provided  for  the  organizing  of 
the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  into  a  separate 
ecclesiastical  connection,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Southern 
General  Conference,  provided  those  Conferences  should  find 
such  jurisdictional  severance  of  the  general  connection  neces- 
sfiry.  It  was,  therefore,  necessary  that  the  sense  of  those 
Conferences  should  be  taken  on  this  important  question,  and 
to  this  end  some  mode  of  action  had  to  be  devised  whereby 
the  object  might  best  be  attained.  Accordingly,  as  the  most 
eligible  manner  of  proceeding  in  this  conjuncture  of  affaire, 
tJie  delegates  from  the  Southern  Conferences  met  together 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  General  Conference,  for  consul- 
tation. At  that  meeting,  they  adopted  the  following  plan  of 
action  as  proper  to  be  recommended  to  the  Conferences  repre- 
sented by  them: — 

"  With  a  view  to  promote  uniformity  of  action  in  the  premises, 
we  beg  leave  to  submit  to  your  consideration  the  expediency 
of  concurring  in  the  following  plan  of  procuring  the  judgment 
a£  the  Church  within  the  slaveholding  States,  as  to  the  pro- 
priety of  organizing  a  Southern  division  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States,  and  of  efl^ecting  such  an 
organization  should  it  be  deemed  necessary:-^ 

"  1.  There  shall  be  a  Convention  held  in  Louisville,  Ken- 
tucky, to  commence  the  1st  May,  1845, — composed  of  dele- 
gates from  the  several  Annual  Conferences  within  the  slave- 
holding  States,  appointed  in  the  ratio  of  one  for  every  eleven 
members. 

"  2.  These  delegates  shall  be  appointed  at  the  ensuing  ses- 
sion of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  enumerated,  each 
Conference  providing  for  the  expenses  of  its  own  delegates. 

"3.  These  several  Annual  Conferences  shall  instruct  their 

,  delegates  to  the  proposed   Convention  on  the  points  on  which 

action  is  contemplated — conforming  their  instructions,  as  far 

as  possible,  to  the   opinions   and  wishes  of  the  membership 

A^dthin  their  several  Conference  bounds." 

They  also  sent  abroad  the  following  address: — 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  105 

ADDRESS 

To  tlie  Ministers  and  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churchy 

in  the  Slavcholdins;  States  and  Territories. 

"  The  undersigned,  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  from  thirteen  Annual  Con- 
ferences in  slaveholding  States  and  Territories,  would  most 
respectfully  represent — that  the  various  action  of  the  majoi-ity 
of  the  General  Conference,  at  its  recent  session,  on  the  subject 
of  slavery  and  aholition,  has  been  such  as  to  render  it  necessary, 
in  the  judgment  of  those  addressing  you,  to  call  attention  to 
the  proscription  and  disability  under  which  the  Southern  portion 
of  the  Church  must  of  necessity  labor  in  view  of  the  action 
alluded  to,  unless  some  measures  are  adopted  to  free  the  mi- 
nority of  the  South  from  the  oppressive  jurisdiction  of  the 
majority  in  the  North,  in  this  respect, 

"•  The  proceedings  of  the  majority,  in  several  cases,  involv- 
ing the  question  of  slavery,  have  been  such  as  indicate  most 
conclusively  that  the  legislative,  judicial  and  administrative 
action  of  the  General  Conference,  as  now  organized,  will  al- 
ways be  extremely  hurtful,  if  not  finally  ruinous,  to  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church;  and  mast  neces- 
sarily produce  a  state  of  conviction  and  feeling  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,  entirely  inconsistent  with  either  the  peace  or 
prosperity  of  the  Church. 

"  The  opinions  and  purposes  of  the  Church  in  the  North  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  are  in  direct  conflict  with  those  of  the 
South,  and  unless  the  South  will  submit  to  the  dictation  and 
interference  of  the  North,  greatly  beyond  what  the  existing 
law  of  the  Church  on  slavery  and  abolition  authorizes,  there 
is  no  hope  of  any  thing  like  union  or  harmony.  The  debate 
and  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Harding,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference;  the  debate  and 
action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew;  and  the  opinions  and 
purposes  avowed  and  indicated  in  a  manifesto  of  the  majority, 
in  reply  to  di  protest  from  the  minority  against  the  proceedings 
complained  of, — together  with  hundreds  of  petitions  from  the 
East,  North  and  West,  demanding  that  slavery,  in  all  its  pos- 
sible forms,  be  separated  from  the  Church; — these,  and  similar 
demonstrations,  have  convinced  the  undersigned,  that  they 
cannot  remain  silent  or  inactive  without  hazard  and  injustice 
to  the  different  portions  of  the  Church  they  represent. 

"  They  have,  therefore,  thought  proper  to  invoke  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Church  in  the  South  to  a  state  of  things  they  are 
compelled  to  regard  as  worthy  the  immediate  notice  and  action 
of  the  Church  throughout  all  the  slaveholding  States  and  Ter- 
ritories.    The  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  notwithstanding 


106  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

the  plain  law  of  the  Discipline  on  the  subject,  was  agitated 
and  debated  in  the  late  General  Conference,  for  five  successive 
weeks;  and  even  at  the  very  close  of  the  session,  the  aspect  of 
things  was  less  satisfactory  and  more  threatening  to  the  South 
than  at  any  former  period;  and  under  such  circumstances  of 
mutual  distrust  and  clisagreement,  the  General  Conference  ad- 
journed. 

"  Some  time  before  the  adjournrjient,  however,  upon  a  decla- 
tion  made  by  the  Southern  delegations,  setting  forth  the  impos- 
sibility of  enduring  such  a  state  of  things  much  longer,  the 
General  Conference,  by  a  very  large  and  decided  majority, 
agreed  to  a  plan  of  formal  and  pacific  separation,  by  which  the 
Southern  Conferences  are  to  have  a  distinct  and  independent 
organization  of  their  own,  in  no  way  subject  to  Northern  juris- 
diction. It  afibrds  us  pleasure  to  state  that  there  were  those 
found  among  the  majority  who  met  this  proposition  with  every 
manifestation  of  justice  and  liberality.  And  should  a  similar 
spirit  be  exhibited  by  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  North, 
when  submitted  to  them,  as  provided  for  in  the  plan  itself, 
there  will  remain  no  legal  impediment  to  its  peaceful  consum- 
mation. 

"  This  plan  is  approved  by  the  undersigned  as  the  best,  and, 
indeed,  all  that  can  be  done  at  present,  in  remedy  of  the  great 
evil  under  which  we  labor.  Provision  is  made  for  a  peaceable 
and  constitutional  division  of  Church  property  of  every 
kind.  The  plan  does  not  decide  that  division  shall  take  place; 
but  simply,  and  it  is  thought  securely,  provides  that  it  may,  if 
it  be  found  necessary.  Of  this  necessity,  you  are  to  be  the 
judges,  after  a  careful  survey  and  comparison  of  all  the  rea- 
sons for  and  against  it. 

"  As  the  undersigned  have  had  opportunity  and  advantages 
which  those  at  a  distance  could  not  possess,  to  form  a  correct 
judgment  in  the  premises,  and  it  may  be  expected  of  them 
that  they  express  their  views  fully  on  the  subject,  they  do  not 
hesitate  to  say,  that  they  regard  a  separation  at  no  distant 
day  as  inevitable;  and  farther,  that  the  plan  of  separation 
agreed  upon  is  as  eligible  as  the  Southern  Conferences  have 
any  right  to  expect  at  any  time.  We  most  respectfully,  there- 
fore, and  with  no  common  solicitude,  beseech  our  brethren  of 
tlie  ministry  and  membership  in  the  slaveholding  States,  to 
examine  this  matter  carefully,  and,  weighing  it  well  in  all  its 
bearings,  try  to  reach  the  conclusion  most  proper  under  the 
circumstances.  Shall  that  which,  in  all  moral  likelihood  must 
take  place  soon,  be  attempted  now,  or  are  there  reasons  why 
it  should  be  postponed  ? 

"  We  deprecate  all  excitement;  we  ask  you  to  be  calm  and 
collected,  and  to  approach  and  dispose  of  the  subject  with  all 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  107 

the  candor  and  forbearance  the  occasion  demands.  The  sep- 
aration proposed  is  not  scliism,  it  is  not  secession.  It  is  a  State 
or  family,  separating  into  two  different  States  or  famihes,  by 
mutual  consent.  As  the  '  JNIethodist  Episcopal  Church'  will  be 
found  North  of  the  dividing  line,  so  the  '  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church'  will  be  found  South  of  the  same  line. 

"  The  undersigned  have  clung  to  the  cherished  unity  of  the 
Church  with  a  firmness  of  purpose  and  force  of  feeling  which 
nothing  but  invincible  necessity  could  subdue.  If,  however, 
nominal  unity  must  co-exist  with  unceasing  strife  and  alienated 
feeling,  what  is  likely  to  be  gained  by  its  perpetuation?  Every 
minister  and  member  of  the  Church  in  slaveholding  States 
must  perceive  at  once,  that  the  constant,  not  to  say  intermin- 
able, agitation  of  the  slavery  and  abolition  question  in  the 
councils  of  the  Church,  and  elsewhere,  must  terminate  in  in- 
calculable injury  to  all  the  Southern  Conferences.  Our  access 
to  slave  and  master  is  to  a  great  extent  cut  ofl".  The  legisla- 
tion of  the  Church  in  conflict  with  that  of  the  State — Church 
policy  attempting  to  control  public  opinion  and  social  order — 
must  generate  an  amount  of  hostility  to  the  Church,  impossible 
to  be  overcome,  and  slowly  but  certainly  to  diminish  both  the 
means  and  the  hope  of  usefulness  and  extension  on  the  part 
of  the  Church. 

"  Disposed,  however,  to  defer  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church, 
we  leave  this  subject  with  you.  Our  first  and  most  direct  ob- 
ject has  been  to  bring  it  fully  before  you,  and  giving  you  an 
opportunity  to  judge  and  determine  for  yourselves,  await  your 
decision.  The  minority  from  the  South  in  the  late  General 
Conference,  ^vere  most  anxious  to  adjourn  the  decision  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  with  all  its  attendant  results,  to  the 
Annual  Conferences  and  to  the  Church  at  large,  to  consider 
and  decide  upon  during  the  next  four  years — as  no  charge  was 
presented  against  the  Bishop,  and  especially  as  this  measure 
was  urgently  recommended  by  the  whole  bench  of  Bishops,  al- 
though Bishop  riedding  subsequently  withdrew  his  name. 
The  proposition,  however,  to  refer  the  whole  subject  to  the 
Church,  was  promptly  rejected  by  the  mnjority,  and  immediate 
action  demanded  and  had.  But  as  all  the  facts  connected 
with  the  equivocal  suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew,  will  comi; 
before  you  in  other  forms,  it  is  unnecessary  to  detail  them  in 
this  brief  address,  the  main  object  of  which  is  to  place  before 
you,  in  a  summary  way,  the  principal  facts  and  reasons  con- 
nected with  the  proposed  separation  of  the  Southern  Con- 
ferences into  a  distinct  organization. 

"  Adopted  at  a  meeting  of  the  Southern  delegations,  held  in 
New  York,  at  the  close  of  the  General  Conference,  June  11th, 
1844,  and  ordered  to  be  published. 


108  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

"  Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Holston,  Ten- 
nessee, North  CaroHna,  Memphis,  Arkansas,  Virginia,  Missis- 
sippi, Texas,  Alabama,  Georgia,  and  South  Carolina  Annual 
Conferences. 

'■'■Kentucky. — H.  B.  Bascom,  William  Gunn,  H.  H.  Kava- 
naugh,  E.  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush. 

"  Missouri. — W.  W.  Redman,  W.  Patton,  J.  C.  Berryman, 
J.  M.  Jameson. 

'^  Holston.— E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  Stringfield. 

"  Tennessee. — R.  Paine,  J.  B.  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  T. 
Maddin. 

"■North  Carolina. — B.  T.  Blake,  J.  Jamieson,  P.  Doub. 

''Memj)Ms.—Q.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  W.  McMahon, 
Thomas  Joyner. 

"  Arkansas. — J.  C.  Parker,  W.  P.  Ratcliffe,  A.  Hunter. 

"  Virginia.— i.  Early,  T.  Crowder,  W.  A.  Smith,  L.  M.  Lee. 

''Mississippi. — W.  Winans,  B.  M.  Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M. 
Rogers. 

"  Texas. — Littleton  Fowder. 

''Alabama. — J.  Boring,  J.  Hamilton,  W.  Murra^,  G.  Garrett. 

"  Georgia.— G.  F.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks,  L.  Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn, 
J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet. 

"  South  Carolina.— W.  Capers,  W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Betts, 
S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker." 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, the  central  organ  of  the  Church  at  New  York  openeda  spir- 
ited attack  on  the  South,  which  has  been  perseveringly  sustain- 
ed with  consistent  uncharitableness  to  the  present  time.  One 
cause  of  this  may  or  may  not  have  been,  that  the  Southern 
delegates  sought  to  supercede  the  editor  of  that  paper,  by  the 
election  of  one  who,  though  less  consistent  and  dignified,  has 
since  been  no  less  bitter  in  his  opposition  to  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  the  South.  The  Church  papers  in  the  South  of 
course  repelled  these  attacks,  and  gave  free  expression  of  their 
opinions  Math  regard  to  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. The  membership,  too,  in  many  places  in  the  South, 
met  in  primary  assemblies  and  uttered  their  disapprobation  of 
those  proceedings  in  strong  language.  And  doubtless  it  is  but 
a  concession  of  candor,  to  admit  that  in  many  cases  quite  too 
much  uncharitableness  and  even  severity  were  indulged  in. 
It  is  but  just,  at  the  same  time,  to  remark,  that  before  the  time 
arrived  for  the  Southern  Conferences  to  take  official  action  on 
the  subject  of  division,  the  popular  excitement  had  very  much 
abated;  and  it  is  believed  that  in  the  action  of  those  Confer- 
ences but  little  is  to  be  found,  to  which,  under  all  the  circum- 
stances, just  censure  can  attach.  And  it  is  by  the  official  ac- 
tion of  the  Southern  Annual  Conferences,  and  not  by  the  ex- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHUECII,    SOUTH.  109 

cited  expressions  of  individuals  or  unofficial  assemblies,  that 
the  true  temper  of  the  South,  at  the  time  of  acting  on  the 
question  of  division,  should  be  judged  of.  The  Resolutions 
and  Reports  or  Addresses,  therefore,  of  the  Conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  on  the  subject  of  a  separate  jurisdiction, 
properly  constitute  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  Southern  or- 
ganization; and  tliey  are  accordingly  inserted. 

The  Kentucky  Conference  was  the  first  in  the  Southern  di- 
vision of  the  Church  to  meet  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
General  Conference.  It  convened  on  the  11th  of  September, 
1844,  and  adopted  the  following  Resolutions,  with  but  one  dis- 
senting vote: — 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  OFV^ISION. 

"The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the 
division  of  the  Church  into  two  separate  General  Conference 
jurisdictions  and  kindred  subjects,  have  had  the  same  under 
serious  consideration,  and  beg  leaA'e  to  report: 

"That  enlightened  as  the  Conference  is  presumed  to  be,  on 
the  merits  of  the  very  important  subject  upon  which  your 
committee  have  been  called  to  act,  it  was  not  deemed  expe- 
dient to  delay  this  report  by  an  elaborate  and  argumentative 
investigation  of  the  matters  committed  to  them,  in  their  va- 
rious relations,  principles  and  bearings;  they,  therefore,  present 
the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  Conference  by  oflering 
for  adoption  the  following  resolutions:— 

"1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  this  Con- 
ference that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  virtu- 
ally deposing  Bishop  Andrew,  and  also  their  action  in  confirm- 
ing the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  the  case  of 
the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  are  not  sustained  by  the  Discipline  of 
our  Church,  and  that  we  consider  those  proceedings  as  con- 
stituting a  highl_v  dangerous  precedent. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  division 
growing  out  of  these  proceedings,  and  that  we  do  most  sin- 
cerely hope  and  pray  that  some  efl^ectual  means,  not  inconsis- 
tent with  the  interests  and  honor  of  all  concerned,  may  be 
suggested  and  devised  by  which  so  great  a  calamity  may  be 
averted,  and  to  this  end  we  recommend  that  our  societies  be 
freely  consulted  on  the  subject. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  Convention 
of  delegates  from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
in  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agree- 
ably to  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  and  South-wes- 
tern delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference;  and  that  the 
ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said  delegates,  to  wit,  one 
delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  Conference,  be  and  the 

10 


110  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

same  is  hereby  adopted;  and  that  this  Conference  will  elect 
delegates  to  the  proposed  Convention  upon  said  basis. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indis- 
pensable, the  delegates  of  this  Conference  are  hereby  required 
to  act  under  the  following  instructions,  to  wit:  that  the  South- 
ern and  South-western  Conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  a 
secession  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they 
shall  be  recognized  in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as 
a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
Ignited  States  of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate  ju- 
risdiction. And  further,  that  being  well  satisfied  with  the 
Discipline  of  the  Church  as  it  is,  this  Conference  instruct  its 
delegates  not  to  support  or  favor  any  change  in  said  Discip- 
line by  said  Convention. 

"5.  Resolved,  That  unless  ^\e  can  be  assured  that  the  rights 
of  our  ministry  and  membership  can  be  effectually  secured 
according  to  Discipline,  against  future  aggressions,  and  re- 
paration be  made  for  past  injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contem- 
plated division  unavoidable. 

"6.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  of  our  delegates 
in  the  late  Geno-al  Conference  in  the  premises,  and  that  we 
tender  them  our  thanks  for  their  faithful  and  independent  dis- 
charge of  duty  in  a  trying  crisis. 

"7.  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  this  Conference  be  di- 
rected to  have  these  resolutions  published  in  such  of  om* 
Church  papers  as  may  be  willing  to  insert  them. 

"All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"M.  M.  Henkle,  Chairman.'''' 

FrRTHER  ACTION  IN  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONTEMPLATED  CONVENTION. 

"■Resolved,  hy  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference ,  That  should 
the  proposed  Convention,  representing  the  Annual  Conferences 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
appointed  to  assemble  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  the  first  of 
j\iay,  184.5,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization,  as  contingently 
provided  for  in  the  resolutions  of  this  body  on  yesterday,  then 
and  in  that  event,  the  Convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the 
regular  CTeneral  Conference,  authorized  and  appointed  by  the 
several  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Southern  division  of  the 
Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights,  powers  and  privileges 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
it!  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  same  restrictions,  lim- 
itations and  restraints. 

'■'■Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  char- 
axiter  and  action  of  the  Convention  as  a  General  Conference 
proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of 
representation  as  now  found  in  the  2d  restrictive  rule,  one  for 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  Ill 

every  twenty-one,  shall  preA'ail  and  determine  the  number  of 
constitutional  delegates,  taking  and  accrediting  as  such  the 
proper  number  from  each  Annual  Conference  lirst  elected  in 
order,  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  as 
members  of  the  Convention  to  deliberate,  etc.,  but  not  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  Convention 
proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South — Frovidcil, 
nevertheless,  that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates,  who 
would  not  be  excluded  from  the  General  Conference  proper, 
by  the  operation  of  the  above  regulation  be  ab.sent,  then  any 
delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulation 
as  member  or  members  of  the  constitutional  General  Con- 
ference, may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such  absent 
delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  the  selection  named  abo^  e. 

'■'■  Resolved,  hji  the  Kcntiicky  Annval  Conference,  That  we  re- 
spectfully invite  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  who  may  feel  themselves  disposed  to  do  so,  to  be  in 
attendance  at  the  contemplated  Convention,  to  be  held  in  the 
city  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May,  1845. 

'■'■Resolved ,  by  tJtc  Kentucky  Animal  Conference,  That  we  ap- 
point the  Friday  immediately  preceding  the  day  fixed  for  the 
meeting  of  the  proposed  General  Convention  of  the  delegates 
of  the  Conferences,  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the 
blessing  of  Almighty  God  on  the  said  Convention." 

Before  its  final  adjournment,  the  Conference  also  appointed 
a  committee  to  address  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  within  the  bounds  of  the  Kentucky  Conference. 
The  following  is  their  address: — 

ADDRESS 

To  tlie  Members  of  the  Metliodist  Episcojxd   Church   untfiin  the 

bounds  of  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference. 

"  Dear  Brethren, — The  Kentucky  Annual  Conference  was 
called  on  at  its  late  session  to  take  action  relative  to  the  doings 
of  the  late  General  Conference.  That  action  has  been  pub- 
lished, and  with  its  character  you  are  presumed  to  be  acquaint- 
ed. But  as  the  resolutions  of  the  Conference  have  gone  forth 
without  any  thing  explanatory  of  the  reasons  or  principles 
upon  which  they  are  based,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to  ap- 
point a  committee,  charged  with  the  duty  of  addressing  the 
Churches  under  our  care  on  this  very  important  subject;  and 
that  responsible  service  was,  by  the  Conference,  committed  to 
the  undersigned.  In  discharge  of  that  trust,  we  address  our- 
selves at  once  to  the  task  assigned  us. 

"  From  the  first  planting  of  Methodism  in  what  are  now  the 
Southern  States  of  the  American  Union,  domestic  slavery, 
which  was  intimately  incorporated  in  the  constitution  of  South- 


112  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

ern  society,  connected  itself  with  the  Church,  and  so  continues, 
A  strong  desire  was  early  manifested  by  the  authorities  of  the 
Church,  and  repeated  efforts  were  made,  to  divorce  this  con- 
nection, but  without  success.  After  varying-  the  modes  of  ac- 
tion, and  changing  the  law  into  every  form  that  might  afford 
hope  of  success,  it  was  found  utterly  impracticable,  and  became 
perfectly  certain  that  so  long  as  we  had  a  Church  in  the  South, 
we /must  have  slavery  in  the  Church;  for  every  day  ministers 
and  members  were  becoming  slaveholders — involuntarily,  by 
inheritance  and  bequest,  and  voluntarily,  by  matrimonial  al- 
liances, in  the  exercise  of  a  freedom  of  choice  which  the 
Church  had  no  right,  and  generally  no  disposition,  to  contol  or 
intermeddle  witii.  In  this  posture  of  affairs  the  relaxation  of 
the  early  and  more  rigorous  rules  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
or  the  total  abandonment  of  the  South,  became  the  alterna- 
tives between  which  the  Church  had  to  select. 

"  Yielding  to  uncontrollable  necessity,  the  North  and  South 
at  length  compromised  their  conflicting  sentiments  on  a  plan 
which  held  ministers  and  official  members  legally  responsible 
for  holding  slaves,  where  State  laws  permitted  their  emanci- 
pation, and  repealed  all  laws  subjecting  private  members  to 
penalties  for  a  connection  Avith  slavery.  This,  however,  did 
not  operate  as  a  permanent  adjustment  of  the  controversy; 
for  many  brethren  of  the  North,  regarding  slavery  under  all 
circumstances  as  sinful,  sought  its  utter  banishment  from  the 
Church,  in  all  possible  forms,  while  those  of  the  South  believed 
it  impossible  to  go  any  farther  than  the  requirements  of  the 
I'ule.  The  North  felt  aggrieved  that  slavery  was  permitted  to 
exist  in  the  Church  at  all,  and  the  South  felt  aggrieved  in  being 
uniformly  proscribed  with  regard  to  offices  in  the  gift  of  the 
General  Conference,  on  account  of  their  connection  with 
slavery,  even  though  they  kept  themselves  strictly  within  the 
law  of  the  Church. 

"  In  this  state  of  things,  entire  cordiality  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected; and  accordingly  the  meetings  of  General  Conference 
were  looked  to  with  unpleasant  apprehension,  if  not  actual 
dread;  and  those  meetings  were  generally  attended  with  many 
things  of  a  disagreeable  character,  arising  out  of  this  standing 
subject  of  contention  and  disagreement. 

"  This  irreconcilable  disagreement  of  opinion,  especially 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  vast  and  widening  extent 
of  our  field  of  operation,  apart  from  any  other  cause,  might 
^ve\\  have  suggested  the  propriety  of  an  attempt  to  prosecute 
our  great  work  under  separate  General  Conference  jurisdic- 
tions, as  being  more  favorable  to  the  general  harmony  and 
tranquillity  of  the  connection.  Such  a  proposition,  too,  might 
have  received  further  countenance  and  support  from  the  fact, 


METHODIST   EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  113 

that  the  popular  construction  of  the  rule  on  the  '  general  itin- 
erant superintendency '  of  the  Church,  required  our  Bishops 
severally  to  travel  over  the  whole  extent  of  this  vast  country, 
consuming  in  toilsome  and  expensive  travel  much  time  which 
might  otherwise  be  bestowed  in  more  efficient  and  profitable 
labor.  There  was,  however,  a  disposition  to  submit  to  priva- 
tions and  make  sacrifices  to  preserve  the  integrity  of  the 
union — the  unity  of  American  Methodism.  And  it  is  probable 
that  the  South  would  long  have  consented  to  be  a  subordinate 
and  proscribed  division  of  the  connection,  rather  than  separate 
from  their  brethren  of  the  North,  had  nothing  more  influential 
and  imperative  than  the  general  causes  adverted  to  occurred 
to  change  that  purpose.  But  circumstances  transpired  at  the 
late  General  Conference  which  hastened  the  crisis,  and  seemed 
to  point  with  unerring  truth  to  the  necessity  of  immediate  and 
decisive  action  on  this  subject. 

"  The  law  regulating  the  connection  of  traveling  preachers 
with  slavery,  evidently  contemplated  their  special  liability  to  be- 
come so  connected  by  bequest,  inheritance,  and  marriage.  In 
these  several  ways  had  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  become  involved 
in  slavery;  in  the  first  two,  without  any  violation  or  concm'renoo 
on  his  part,  and  in  the  third,  by  following  his  judgment  and 
affections  in  selecting  the  Avife  of  his  bosom.  The  law  of  the 
Church  recognized  his  right  to  make  the  acquisition,  the  law 
of  the  State  bound  the  incumbrance  upon  him,  and  in  that 
contingency  the  law  of  the  Church  had  no  farther  demands 
upon  him,  but  legalized  the  holding.  This  Avould  have  been 
the  view  of  every  one,  and  here  would  propably  have  been  a 
perpetual  end  of  the  matter,  but  for  one  fact;  that  was,  that 
though  the  Church  law  was  satisfied  and  complied  with,  the 
prescriptive  usage  of  the  North  towards  ministers  of  the  South, 
was  impinged,  and  in  danger  of  becoming  unsettled  by  the 
circumstance.  That  usage  was,  to  put  no  man  into  high  office, 
especially  the  episcopacy,  who  was  in  any  way  connected 
with,  slavery,  no  matter  how  involuntarily.  But  here  was  a 
Bishop  who  had  become  involved  in  slavery  after  elevation  to 
tlie  episcopate;  and  to  suffer  him  to  remain  in  office  in  this 
state  of  things  might  have  operated  to  place  Southern  minis- 
ters on  a  ground  of  equality  with  those  of  the  North,  almost 
as  effectually  as  if  he  had  been  elected  under  the  circum- 
stances providentially  thrown  around  him  subsequently.  To 
put  Bishop  Andrew  out  of  the  episcopate,  therefore,  or  in 
some  way  to  punish  him  for  this  act,  became  the  all-absorbing 
concern  of  the  dominant  party  in  the  General  Conference. 
But  how  this  was  to  be  done,  was  a  question  of  great  difficulty. 
Three  several  plans  were  suggested — '  direct  impeachment;' 
an  official  request  to  resign,  and  such  a  request  to  suspend  the 

10* 


114  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

exercise  of  his  episcopal  functions  until  the  obstacle  in  question 
should  be  removed.  '  It  was  believed,'  and  with  good  reason, 
that '  a  direct  impeachment '  could  have  been  sustained,  because 
the  votes  Avere  there  in  numbers  sufficient  to  do  it,  M'ith  or 
without  law,  but  it  w^as  not  by  any  means  so  clear  that  the 
measure  would  be  sustained  by  the  Church  at  large  and  by 
the  sense  of  the  general  community,  and  it  was  accordingly 
not  attempted.  The  plan  of  requesting  the  Bishop,  by  General 
Conference  resolution,  to  resign,  was  therefore  brought  into 
Conference  as  the  most  eligible  one;  but  was  finally  abandoned 
by  its  originators  and  original  advocates,  and  the  party  threw 
themselves  on  the  third  alternative,  that  of  requesting  the 
Bishop  not  to  exercise  the  functions  of  his  office,  while  con- 
nected with  slavery.  Perhaps  this  last  measure  was  preferred 
because  it  would  put  the  Bishop  quite  as  effectually,  and  a  little 
more  directly,  into  their  power,  than  the  preceding  one. 

"But  an  obstacle  stood  in  the  way  of  infficting punishment 
on  Bishop  Andrew  for  his  providential  connection  with  slavery. 
The  only  law  by  which  Bishop  Andrew  could  be  punished  was 
the  law  applying  to  itinerant  ministers;  but  wdth  that  he  had 
strictly  complied,  and  of  course  was  entitled  to  its  protection. 
Jt  was  then  indispensably  necessary  to  take  him  from  under  the 
protection  of  the  law  by  which  they  had  just  then  punished  an 
itinerant  minister,  and  this  could  be  only  done  by  denying  that 
a  Bishop  is  an  itinerant  minister.  This  astonishing  position 
v^&s  clearly  taken,  and  attempted  to  be  maintained,  by  the 
majority  of  the  General  Conference.  That  a  Bishop  is  an 
itinerant  minister  in  fact  cannot  be  denied  by  any  man  enjoying 
right  reason,  and  that  he  is  so  in  law  is  nearly  as  clear.  For 
more  than  fifty  years  from  the  organization  of  the  Church, 
Bishops  received  their  compensation  under  the  law  making 
provision  for  traveling  preachers;  but  because  the  General 
Conference  of  1836 — probably  to  meet  a  cavil,  or  to  gratify  a 
whim— added  the  word  'bishops'  to  'traveling  and  super- 
annuated preachers,'  in  the  salary  law,  the  majority  Reply  to 
tlie  Southern  Protest  maintains,  that  therefore  a  Bishop  is  not 
an  itinerant  preacher.  The  argument  would  prove  with 
stronger  reason,  that  superannuated  preachers  are  not  in  law 
itinerant;  for  they,  as  well  as  Bishops,  are  separately  named 
in  the  salary  law;  and  besides,  they  do  not  actually  itinerate, 
which  Bishops  do. 

"  But  if  the  Bishop  was  removed  by  the  power  of  this  strange 
argument,  from  under  the  protection  of  the  law  in  question, 
then  there  is  no  other  law  that  can  apply  to  the  case;  he  Is 
under  no  law  whatever  with  regard  to  this  matter.  And  for 
so  remarkable  a  relation  some  cause  must  be  shown,  and  this 
the  dominant  party  have  attempted  in  their  Reply  to  the  Protest, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  115 

by  assuminof  that  at  the  time  the  law  was  enacted,  '  the  North 
and  South  did  not  dream  that  slavery  would  ever  find  its  way 
into  the  episcopacy,'  and  accordingly  no  provision  was  made 
for  such  a  contingency!  The  la^v  then  enacted,  supposed  that 
Bishops  might  be  guilty  of  immorality  of  every  grade,  and  it 
made  provision  for  their  punishment  on  conviction  of  such 
ofiences;  and  yet,  though  Bishop  Hamline  informs  us  that  the 
otl'ence  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  '  a  shade  less  than  imprudence,' 
our  fathers,  we  are  to  be  told,  '  never  dreamed  that  a  Bishop 
could  be  guilty  of  such  an  offence!'  The  first  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  been  publicly  charged  with 
being  the  purchaser  and  holder  of  slaves,  for  a  time;  and  he 
himself  did  not  deny,  but  rather  confessed  the  fact;  and  yet  in 
view  of  this  fact,  our  fathers  could  not  dream  that  a  Bishop 
could  ever  be  guilty  of  such  an  offence! 

The  more  efiectually  to  exclude  the  Bishop  the  pale  and 
protection  of  the  traveling  preachers'  law,  we  are  told  in  the 
'  Reply'  that '  In  the  case  of  ordinary  traveling  preachers  there 
appeared  to  be  a  necessity  for  some  indulgence.  They  might 
become  owners  of  slaves  in  the  providence  of  God,  the  laws 
of  the  States  might  not  allow  emancipation,  and  they  had  no 
power  to  choose  their  own  place  of  residence.  But  no  such 
reason  could  apply  to  a  Bishop,  who  has  always  been  allowed 
trO  reside  where  he  pleased.'  But  may  not  a  Bishop  also  become 
tlie  owner  of  slaves  in  the  providence  of  God?  Was  not  this 
the  case  with  Bishop  Andrew?  And  may  not  State  laws 
prevent  a  Bishop  from  emancipating  his  slaves  as  effectually 
as  any  other  preacher  or  any  other  man?  We  cannot  there- 
fore, see  the  force  of  this  argument.  And  though  '  a  Bishop 
may  reside  Avhere  he  pleases,'  yet  they  are  selected  with  more 
or  less  reference  to  locality,  and  they  would  not  promote  their 
u-sefulness  or  increase  their  influence  by  abandoning  the  locality 
from  which  they  were  selected,  with  a  view  to  accommodate 
some  popular  or  local  prejudice.  And  this  doctrine,  to  have 
any  weight  at  all,  must  imply  an  obligation  on  all  our  Bishops, 
not  residing  in  the  North,  to  remove  there  immediately  on 
their  election.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  expatriation,  which  should 
be  repudiated  by  every  man  of  correct  principles  and  feeling. 
But  even  suppose  this  were  done  by  a  Southern  Bishop,  this 
would  not  prevent  the  law  from  devolving  slaves  on  him  by 
inheritance,  nor  prevent  his  old  friends  in  the  South  from 
bequeathing  them  to  him;  nor  should  it  prevent  him  from  going 
among  the  friends  of  his  youth  to  select  a  companion. 

"  But  farther  to  prove  that  the  law  for  traveling  preachers  is 
not  severe  enough  for  Bishops,  the  majority  Reply  says, 
'  Preachers  incumbered  with  slavery  labor  among  people  simi- 
larly situated,  and  who  would  not  be  likely  to  object  to  them  on 


116  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

that  account.  But  a  Bishop  is  required  to  labor  in  every  part  of 
the  connection,  [i.  e.,in  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding^  dis- 
tricts,] and  in  by  far  the  larger  part  the  services  of  a  slaveholding 
Bishop  would  be  unacceptable.'  But  it  is  not  true  that  Bishops 
are  the  only  preachers  who  have  to  labor  in  both  slaveholding 
and  non-slaveholding-  portions  of  the  Avork.  More  than  seven 
hundred  of  our  preachers  labor  in  Conferences  embracing  both 
classes  of  territory,  and  are  quite  as  liable  to  have  w^ork  among 
the  two  classes  referred  to  as  Bishops  are.  "What,  therefore, 
is  assigned  as  a  reason  why  Bishops  should  be  excluded  from 
the  provisions  and  protection  of  the  law,  applies  with  equal 
force  to  more  than  seven  hundred  other  preachers. 

"  In  this  way  the  Bishop  is  taken  out  of  the  statute,  and  by 
arguments  no  more  cogent  and  conclusive  than  these,  a  decree 
of  ecclesiastical  outlawry  is  attempted  to  be  justified. 

"  But  having  with  strong  arm,  taken  the  Bishop  from  lander 
the  law,  the  next  measure  to  be  provided  for — and  a  very 
important  one — was  to  show  right,  or  justification  for  inflicting 
punishment  without  law.  The  exercise  of  such  a  power  is  one 
of  the  distinguishing  attributes  of  despotism.  And  whether  it 
be  exercised  by  one  man  or  an  hundred,  the  principle  is  the 
same:  the  will  of  the  ruling  authority  unrestricted  is  the  law  of 
action;  and  that  will  is  liable  to  be  biassed  by  interest,  prejudice, 
or  passion,  and  especially  in  times  of  high  excitement. 

"It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  so  fearful  a  prerogative,  now 
for  the  first  time  asserted,  would  be  quite  tamely  acquiesced  in 
by  the  Church  at  large,  unless  strongly  fortified  by  conclusive 
reasoning.  To  defend  this  position,  then,  became  a  prominent 
link  in  the  strong  chain  of  power  forged  by  the  dominant  party 
in  the  last  General  Conference.  To  this  end  two  processes  are 
resorted  to;  the  episcopal  office  is  degraded,  beyond  all  prece- 
dent of  friend  or  foe,  and  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference 
magnified  in  equal  ratio.  It  is  accordingly  held  that  a  Bishop 
is  the  mere  creature  and  servant  of  the  General  Conference,  and 
not  the  officer  of  the  whole  Church,  as  every  body  up  to  this 
time  had  supposed.  He  is  not  appointed  during  life  or  good 
behavior,  as  has  always  been  held  by  the  whole  Church  and 
the  whole  world,  but  simply  during  the  arbitrary  pleasure  of 
the  General  Conference;  Avho  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  old  con- 
tinental despots,  appoint  him  durante  henepkicito.  He  continues 
in  office  not  in  virtue  of  his  election  or  ordination,  of  talents, 
faithfulness,  or  piety,  but  in  virtue  of  pleasing — we  may  add, 
humoring — the  majority  of  the  General  Conference!  And  so 
trivial  a  matter  is  the  deposing  of  a  Bishop  now  considered  by 
the  dominant  party,  that  Mr.  Hamline,  a  leader  and  now  a 
Bishop  of  that  party,  places  it  on  the  same  ground  with  the 
changing  of  a  class  leader,  an  act  provided  for  by  express  law, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  117 

and  required  in  certain  cases  as  a  part  of  the  pastor's  regular 
duty.  If  our  Northern  brethren  are  opposed  to  our  episcopacy, 
let  them  avow  that  opposition  frankly  and  independently,  but 
let  them  not  murder  it  by  inches,  under  professions  of  friendli- 
ness to  the  office. 

"  But  while  the  episcopacy  is  thus  degraded,  the  General 
Conference  is  exalted  into  an  enormous  irresponsible  aristoc- 
racy, at  whose  feet  the  episcopacy  must  bow  in  submissive,  not 
to  say  abject,  dependence.  The  General  Conference  claims  not 
only  the  possession  of  supreme  legislative  and  judicial  power, 
but  in  the  language  of  Bishop  Hamline  '  executive  functions, 
supreme  and  all  controlling.'  And  the  same  high  authority 
asserts,  with  the  apparent  concurrence  of  the  Northern  party, 
that  the  General  Conference  may  at  any  time, '  in  ten  minutes,' 
constitutionally  alter  or  abrogate  any  or  every  part  of  the 
economy  of  Methodism,  save  only  the  very  few  things  protected 
by  the  six  restrictions.  Itinerancy,  love  feasts,  class  meetings, 
and  every  thing  time-honored,  venerable,  and  sacred  in  Meth- 
odism, is  at  the  mercy  and  caprice  of  that  body.  When  the 
leading  doctors  of  the  Church  claim  for  the  General  Conference, 
powers  more  monstrous  and  despotic  than  any  opposers  of  our 
economy  have  ever  dared  to  charge  that  body  with  holding,  how 
can  the  Church  be  defended  against  the  attacks  of  her  friends? 
Well  may  she  say  '  Defend  me  against  my  friends,  and  I  will 
defend  myself  against  my  enemies.' 

"  This  dangerous  claim  to  irresponsible  power  appears  to  be 
chiefly  based  on  the  novel  and  astonishing  assumption,  that  the 
six  restrictive  regulations  adopted  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1808,  is  '■  tlic  constitution  of  the  Church,'  and  that,  therefore, 
whatever  they  do  not  prohibit,  the  General  Conference  has  full 
and  rightful  power  to  do. 

"  It  is  not  material  whether  we  call  any  specified  part  of  our 
system  a  constitution  or  not.  Until  recently,  no  part  was  so 
designated  in  Methodist  parlance — and  it  is  well  known  that 
at  the  time  the  six  restrictions  were  adopted,  and  for  many 
years  afterwards,  they  were  not  spoken  of  as  a  constitution. 
They  have  been  respected,  and  properly  so,  as  of  constitutional 
force,  though  lacking  in  some  of  the  elements  of  constitutional 
character.  But  'the  constitution  of  the  Church'  they  are  not. 
The  Reply  to  the  Protest,  however,  asserts,  '  that  the  Church 
actually  did  come  together  [in  1808]  to  frame  a  constitution;' 
and  these  six  very  short  paragraphs  are  pointed  to  as  the  grand 
result  of  their  constitutional  labors.  That  General  Conference 
was  constituted  in  all  respects  as  its  immedtate  predecessor  of 
1804,  with  no  other  or  diflerent  powers,  and  for  no  different 
purposes,  save  that  some  expectation  was  entertained  in  certain 
quarters,  that  the  Conference  of  that  year,  as  a  matter  of 


118  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

convenience,  in  view  of  the  extent  of  the  connection,  would 
provide  for  a  reduction  of  the  members  in  subsequent  General 
Conferences,  by  giving  them  a  delegated  character.  This 
they  did,  and  out  of  it  grew  the  six  restrictions.  And  this  is 
the  sole  ground  upon  Avhich  is  based  the  bold  and  unsupported 
declaration  just  quoted  from  the  '  Reply.' 

"  The  truth  is,  if  we  employ  the  term  constitution  to  signify 
a  regular  written  frame  work  of  government,  then  M^e  have  no 
Church  constitution;  for  not  only  truth,  but  respect  for  the  dead 
and  living  patriarchs  of  the  Church  would  restrain  us  from 
asserting  or  admitting  that '  the  Church  actually  came  together 
to  frame  [such]  a  constitution,'  and  produced  nothing  but  the 
few  lines  dignified  by  our  A^orthern  brethren  with  the  title  of 
'  the  constitution,'  but  which  our  fathers  of  that  time  '  never 
dreamed'  of  calling  by  such  a  name  or  investing  with  such 
attributes. 

"  But  if  we  employ  the  term  in  its  more  legitimate  sense, 
as  implying  the  permanent  ground  work  and  fundamental 
elements  of  a  system,  upon  which,  and  by  which  it  is  constitntcc/ , 
then  we  can  boast  a  constitution  of  solid  base  and  ample  pro- 
visions. The  grand  constitutional  elements  of  our  Methodism 
consist  not  chiefly  of  'restrictions,'  but  of  regulations  long  and 
well  approved,  usages  permanently  settled,  and  whatever 
essentially  constitutes  the  system,  such  as  itinerancy,  class 
meetings,  and  so  forth.  These,  though  not  guarded  by  the 
restrictive  rules,  the  General  Conference  has  no  power,  moral 
or  constitutional,  to  destroy;  for  they  are  essential  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  system,  and  therefore  constitutional  in  it. 

"  Doctrines  such  as  we  have  been  reviewing,  we  cannot  but 
regard  as  dangerous,  and  calculated  to  unsettle  the  foundations 
of  the  Church.  With  these  high  powers  claimed  by  the  General 
Conference,  what  assurance  can  we  have  that  at  the  next  meet- 
ing of  that  body,  some  other  high  functionary,  will  not,  under 
some  other  excitement,  or  the  same,  be  dragged  doAvn  from  his 
elevation,  to  bend  before  the  General  Conference  supremacy,  or 
be  crushed  by  its  giant  power?  And  what  assurance  can  Ave 
have  that  from  pulling  down  great  officers,  they  will  not,  under 
the  power  of  some  new  impulse,  no  more  unexpected  than 
the  last,  proceed  to  pulling  up  the  great  pillars  of  Wesleyan 
Methodism? 

"Our  brethren  of  the  North,  we  are  aware,  deny,  in  their 
'  Reply,'  that  any  punishment  whatever  has  been  inflicted  on 
Bishop  Andrew;  but  it  is  a  strange  denial.  The  action  in  his 
case,  they  assert, '  was  neither  judicial  nor  punitive.  It  neither 
achieves  nor  intends  a  deposition,  nor  so  much  as  a  legal  suspen- 
sion .'  '  Bishop  Andrew,'  they  say, '  has  been  subjected  to  no  trial, 
and  no  penalty  has  been  inflicted.'     That  he  has  been  punished, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  119 

is  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  which  no  siibtilty  of  abstract  specuhation 
can  change  or  disprove,  and  we  do  not  suppose  the  rigors  of  that 
infliction  will  find  much  mitigation  in  the  fact  here  asserted,  that 
it  was  done  without  trial.  Has  not  the  General  Conference 
inflicted  a  deep  wound  on  the  reputation  and  feelings  of  Bishop 
Andrew  in  ofiicially  requesting  him  not  to  exercise  the  functions 
of  his  office,  and  in  refusing  to  authorize  the  episcopal  board  to 
assign  him  work?  And  had  they  expelled  him  from  the  Church, 
they  could  have  inflicted  no  other  kinds  of  punishment  than 
those  he  has  been  subjected  to,  though  it  w^ould  have  differed  in 
deforce.  Is  not  a  mode  of  punishing  a  preacher  for  some  dere- 
liction of  duty,  or  commission  of  misdemeanor,  to  'leave  him 
without  an  appointment  for  one  year '  ?  This  is  done  avowedly 
as  a  punishment;  and  how  can  our  brethren  assert  that  it  was 
no  punishment  to  a  Bishop  to  be  '  left  without  an  appointment' 
virtually  for  life?  But  it  is  assumed  that  he  is  yet  a  Bishop, 
and  therefore  is  unpunished.  It  is  true  he  is  a  Bishop  in  name, 
but  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  in  nothing  else.  vSo  the  allied 
powers  were  willing  that  Napoleon  should  still  wear  the  empty 
title  of  Emperor,  while  they  carefully  divested  him  of  all 
imperial  power,  and  sent  him  to  pine  and  die  in  desolate  ban- 
ishment, on  the  dreary  rock  of  St.  Helena,  as  a  state  prisoner. 

"  With  such  action  taken,  and  such  doctrines  avowed,  it  had 
not  been  astonishing  if  the  Southern  delegates  had  given  up 
all  for  lost.  Yet  even  thus  situated  they  sought  peace,  and 
proposed  every  honorable  compromise.  They  offered  a  pledge 
that  Bishop  Andrew  should  free  himself  from  slavery  as  soon 
as  the  law  of  the  State  would  permit  it.  This  was  promptly 
rejected.  They  proposed  that  Bishop  Andrew  should  labor 
only  where  it  was  known  that  he  would  be  acceptable.  This, 
too,  was  rejected,  though  immediately  afterwards  they  elected 
a  man  to  the  same  office,  in  whose  case  they  of  course  kne^v 
they  would  be,  as  they  have  been,  compelled  to  make  the  same 
arrangement.  The  episcopal  board  unanimously  recom- 
mended that  the  case  be  laid  over  ibr  four  years,  until  the 
Conferences  and  the  Church  could  have  time  to  pass  action 
upon  it;  in  the  mean  time  allowing  Bishop  Andrew  to  exercise 
the  functions  of  his  office.  And  the  same  proposition  had 
previously  come  from  the  South,  limited  to  one  year.  But  both 
were  unceremoniously  rejected  by  avast  majority.  After  the 
vote  inflicting  punishment  on  Bishop  Andrew  had  been  passed, 
the  Bishops  virtually  asked  permission  to  employ  him  in  the  field 
of  episcopal  labor;  but  this  the  Cieneral  Conference  refused,  a.s 
it  did  every  proposition  looking  towards  compromise  or  amica- 
ble adjustment  of  the  difficulty. 

"  It  was  also  well  known  to  the  Southern  delegates,  that  a 
very  general  determination  in  the  North  was,  never  to  allow 


120  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

this  subject  to  rest,  until  they  had,  to  use  their  own  language, 
'  entirely  purged,  not  only  the  episcopacy,  but  the  ministry  and 
membership  from  the  last  vestige  of  slavery.'  They  knew 
that  the  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  oppressive  as  it 
was,  was  only  designed  as  an  entering  wedge,  and  that  so  far 
as  human  foresight  could  go,  aided  by  nearly  infallible  indica- 
tions, if  the  action  in  that  case  had  been  tamely  acquiesced  in, 
or  submitted  to,  that  at  each  succeeding  General  Conference 
the  proceedings  against  the  South  would  become  more  and 
more  oppressive  and  proscriptive,  until  that  portion  of  the 
Church  would  be  compelled  to  separate  from  the  North,  or 
submit  to  proceedings  which  must  utterly  exterminate  the 
Church  in  the  South. 

"  So  circumstanced,  it  would  seem  impossible  for  the  Southern 
delegates  to  have  pursued  any  other  course  than  that  of 
declaring  for  a  peaceable  separation  and  an  organization  under 
a  Southern  Conference  jurisdiction.  This  they  did,  and  have 
requested  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference,  with  others  in  the 
South,  to  take  action  on  the  subject,  which  we  have  done. 

"  To  such  a  division,  there  is  in  our  feelings  a  strong  and 
natural  aversion.  This  we  experience  in  the  division  of  an 
Annual  Conference,  a  circuit,  a  station,  or  even  a  class,  and 
of  course  much  more  in  a  General  Conference  division.  But 
our  sober  judgment  with  regard  to  the  good  of  the  whole,  and 
not  our  feelingvs,  should  be  the  guide  of  our  action. 

"  If  division  can  be  avoided  safely  and  honorably,  it  should 
by  all  means  be  done.  But  how  is  it  to  be  done?  Will  the 
South  consent,  will  Kentucky  Conference  consent,  after  the 
unlawful  degradation  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  after  the  avowal 
of  doctrines  and  claim  of  powers  by  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence so  new,  dangerous  and  unmethodistical,  to  submit  to  all, 
remaining  in  our  present  humbled  position,  and  wait  four  years 
in  agitation  and  suspense  in  the  vain  and  groundless  hope  that 
the  next  General  Conference  v^dll  act  any  more  favorably  to 
the  South  than  the  last, — and  that  with  the  certain  assurance 
that  that  General  Conference  will  act  more  proscriptively  than 
any  one  that  has  preceded  it?  Probably  no  one  will  contend 
for  this.  But  compromise  is  suggested.  Pending  the  action 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  the  South  proposed  every  form 
of  compromise  not  dishonorable,  and  were  met  with  prompt 
repulse.  Now  that  they  have  taken  action  in  a  form  and  under 
circumstances  which  make  it  imply  a  power  and  right  to  destroy 
the  character  and  standing  of  any  minister  in  the  South  at 
pleasure,  they  are  probably  willing  to  compromise  on  their  own 
terms;  that  is,  they  may  consent  to  receive  our  unconditional 
submission;  but  we  fear  this  is  all. 

*'But  it  is  conjectured  that  the  Conferences  and  people  of 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CIIURCII,    SOUTH.  121 

the  North  may  be  more  liberal  in  their  views  than  the  members 
of  the  late  General  Conference,  and  that  they  may  favor  an 
honorable  compromise,  and  open  the  way  for  a  perpetuation  of 
our  union.  This  is,  we  fear,  a  more  groundless  hope.  Several 
of  the  Northern  Conferences  and  primary  assemblies  of  the 
people,  have  already  spoken  out  on  this  subject,  and  all  who 
have,  approve  in  the  strongest  terms  the  doings  of  the  General 
Conference,  save  where  those  proceedings  were  not  sufliciently 
severe  against  the  South,  to  suit  their  views.  The  Church 
papers  of  the  North  afford  no  better  hope.  By  far  the  most 
mild  and  conciliatory  of  them,  has  commenced  an  elaborate 
and  wholesale  justification  and  defence  of  the  doings  of  the 
General  Conference.  The  great  central  organ  of  the  Church, 
which  has  in  the  South  a  circulation  of  thousands,  not  only 
fully  justifies  the  General  Conference,  but  has  labored  to  make 
the  impression  that  its  proceedings  were  extremely  lenient,  and 
that  Bishop  Andrew  might  in  justice  have  been  much  more 
severely  dealt  with;  while  the  paper  at  Boston  is  still  more 
ultra  and  violent  against  the  South.  Where  then  is  hope  for 
a  compromise,  short  of  unconditional  submission?  There  have, 
it  is  true,  appeared  a  few  individual  propositions  and  one  or 
two  from  Church  meetings,  suggesting  plans  of  compromise; 
but  none  of  these  are  at  all  as  reasonable  in  themselves,  or  as 
favorable  or  acceptable  to  the  North,  as  those  they  so  promptly 
rejected. 

"There  then  appears  no  just  and  honorable  alternative  left, 
but  a  peaceable  organization  of  two  General  Conferences. 
This  is  called  a  division  of  the  Church;  but  it  is  not  so  in  the 
offensive  and  repulsive  sense  in  which  it  is  frequently  used. — 
The  same  doctrines,  ordinances,  means  of  grace,  modes  of 
operating,  and  even  the  same  disciplinary  rules  probably — . 
save  wherein  the  North  may  depart  from  our  present  system 
— will  govern  both,  only  like  Abram  and  Lot,  and  from  the 
same  motives,  we  propose,  if  compelled,  to  turn  the  one  to  the 
right  and  the  other  to  the  left,  that  separsited  farther  asunder 
we  may  enjoy  closer  union.  Already  we  have  several  Meth- 
odist Churches,  or  divisions  of  the  great  Methodist  family 
existing  in  separated  union,  in  divided  harmony,  which  are  by 
no  means  as  nearly  related  to  each  other  as  the  Northern  and 
Southern  divisions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  be. 
The  British  Methodist  connection,  that  of  Canada,  and  our 
own  in  the  United  States,  are  entirely  separate  and  indepen- 
dent, holding,  to  be  sure,  the  same  doctrines,  but  operating 
under  different  systems  of  Church  polity,  widely  varying  from 
each  other  in  many  things,  yet  constituting  one  great  and 
perfectly  harmonious  brotherhood. 

"  But  we  find  many  of  our  Northern  brethren,  and  some  of 

11 


122  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

the  Northern  Conferences,  protesting  against  a  division  on  the 
ground  that  there  is  no  legal  provision  for  such  division.  This 
objection  comes  not  with  the  very  best  grace  from  the  men  who 
had  neither  legal  nor  moral  scruples  about  degrading  a  Bishop 
without  law  and  against  law, — who  claim  for  the  General 
Conference  the  legal  power  to  change  or  destroy  every  thing 
in  Methodism  not  embraced  in  the  restrictions.  This  measm'O 
is  not  there  prohibited,  and  therefore,  agreeably  to  their  own 
doctrine,  the  General  Conference  has  'full  power'  to  do  this 
A^ery  thing. 

"  But  we  have  a  still  stronger  precedent,  and  one  as  full  in 
point  as  we  could  ask  for  our  purpose.  The  Canadian  Meth- 
odists were  for  a  great  number  of  years  a  part  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  In  1828,  they  applied  to  the  General 
Conference  to  be  set  ofl'  into  a  separate  Church  organization, 
and  the  General  Conference  granted  their  request;  but  not  in 
the  indirect  manner  proposed  in  the  present  case.  The  resolu- 
tion dissolving  the  union  between  the  Church  and  the  Canada 
Conference  is  as  follows: — 

" '  Resolved,  ^-c,  That  the  compact  existing  between  the 
Canada  Annual  Conference  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  be,  and  hereby  is,  dissolved  by 
mutual  consent.' 

"  The  second  resolution  advises  and  requests  our  Bishops  to 
ordain  a  Bishop  for  the  Canada  connection.  The  third  advises 
or  recommends  to  the  Canada  connection  to  adopt  the  form  of 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
{States,  '  with  such  modifications  as  their  particular  relations 
may  render  necessary.'  The  fourth  expresses  a  desire  for  the 
maintenance  of  friendly  relations  with  the  new  organization. 
The  fifth  leaves  open  the  claim  of  the  Canada  brethren  on  the 
Book  Concern  and  Chartered  Fund  for  future  adjustment.  But 
it  was  afterwards  closed  by  agreeing  to  pay  them  an  annuity 
of  $700.  Here  is  the  direct  exercise  of  powders  greater  than 
are  called  for  or  proposed  to  be  exercised  in  the  present  case. 
A  portion  of  the  Church  is  set  off  by  a  formal  vote  into  a  new 
connection,  and  their  dividend  is  given  them  without  any 
change  in  the  sixth  restriction,  or  any  thing  but  a  simple  resolve 
of  the  General  Conference.  They  either  then  had  full  powere 
to  do  this  thing,  or  they  assumed  the  exercise  of  powers  not 
belonging  to  them,  which  has  not  been  charged.  And  if  they 
possessed  the  power  then,  why  have  they  it  not  now?  One 
only  plea  is  urged  in  favor  of  that  action  as  giving  a  preference 
over  the  present  in  point  of  legality.  It  is  that  in  sending 
preachers  to  Canada  the  Bishop  usually  got  the  supply  by  calling 
for  volunteers,  instead  of  appointing  them  in  the  ordinary  way. 
But  could  the  exercise  of  this  prudent  lenity  on  the  part  of  the 


METUODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  l!23 

Bishop,  ill  filling  a  new  and  arduous  field,  have  any  bearing-  on 
the  constitutionality  of  dividing  that  field  off  into  a  separate 
connection?  But  if  it  could,  then  it  will  apply  to  all  parts  of 
our  work  which  were  once  new  and  difiicult;  for  it  has  been 
the  constant  practice  to  supply  new  fields  of  labor  by  volun- 
teers. New  England  was  so  supplied  in  early  times,  and  so 
was  all  the  South  below  Virginia,  or  at  most  North  Carolina; 
the  entire  West  and  Southwest  were  so  supplied,  and  this  mode 
of  supply  is  yet  going  on  in  our  still  far  West,  Arkansas,  Texas, 
Oregon,  (fee.  Nearly  the  whole,  then,  of  the  Southern  portion 
of  the  proposed  division,  comes  within  this  rule,  if  it  were 
even  possible  to  allow  it  any  force. 

"  In  view  of  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  in  the  case,  the 
Kentucky  Annual  Conference  have  felt  compelled  to  declare, 
that  devotedly  as  we  are  attached  to  the  union,  unless  our 
Northern  brethren  shall  show  a  respect  for  our  rights  and  cir- 
cumstances and  the  interests  of  the  Church  in  the  South  very 
different  from  that  shown  at  the  late  General  Conference,  in 
self-defence,  and  to  save  the  Church  in  the  So\ith  from  utter 
extermination,  we  shall  be  obliged,  though  reluctantly,  to  place 
ourselves  under  a  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  distinct  from 
that  of  the  North,  but  strictly  on  the  Discipline  and  within  the 
constitution  in  all  things. 

"  And  now,  brethren,  having  presented  this  grave  matter  to 
you  in  such  manner  as  appeared  to  be  just  and  proper,  we 
call  upon  you  to  bestow  on  the  subject  the  serious  and  candid 
attention  its  importance  demands.  But  in  that  consideration, 
be  careful  to  avoid  on  the  one  hand,  the  infiuence  of  an  anxious 
desire  for  division,  and  on  the  other  a  vague  and  terrifying 
dread  of  it.  The  one  tends  to  improper  rashness  and  precipi- 
tancy, the  other  to  a  tame  surrender  of  sacred  rights,  and 
a  degrading  unconditional  submission.  This  fearful  crisis  ha.s 
been  brought  upon  us,  not  by  ourselves,  but  by  the  unbridled 
ultraism  of  our  Northern  brethren;  and  it  is  for  us  to  do  the 
best  we  can  in  this  emergency.  Theirs  is  the  onerous  respon- 
sibility, before  heaven  and  earth,  of  bringing  us  into  most 
trying  difficulties — ours  the  responsibility  of  conducting  our- 
selves worthy  our  Christian  profession  and  our  cause,  under 
those  difficulties. 

"  To  us  it  does  appear,  that  the  delegates  from  the  Southern 
and  South-western  Conferences  could  not  have  done  less  than 
they  did,  without  sacrificing  the  best  religious  interests  of  the 
South,  and  most  of  all,  those  of  the  slave,  the  professed  object 
of  Northern  sympathy. 

"  After  the  majority  of  the  General  Conference,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Southern  delegates,  had  violated  not  only  the 
settled  usage  of  the  Church,  but  the  unambiguous  letter  of  the 


124  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

law,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding — after  they  had  refused  to 
Bishop  Andrew  the  ])rotection  of  all  Church  law,  and  assumed 
and  exercised  the  power  of  inHicting  punishment  without  law, 
• — 4iad  the  Southern  delegates  tamely  submitted  to  all,  what 
must  have  been  the  result?  In  the  first  place,  doubtless  multi- 
tudes of  the  Southern  membership  would  have  felt  themselves 
compelled  to  secede  from  the  Church  immediately. 

"  The  next  would  inevitably  have  been,  that  Methodist 
preachers  would  have  been  promptly  excluded  from  all  access 
to  the  slave  population  of  the  South,  and  this  great  open  door  of 
u.scfulness  would  have  been  firmly  closed.  And  beside,  it  would 
have  invited  to  further  aggressions  on  the  part  of  the  North. 

"  Now  if  our  Northern  brethren  will  make  suitable  reparation 
for  the  past,  and  afford  satisfactory  security  for  the  future,  as 
expressed  in  our  fifth  Conference  resolution,  then  will  we  gladly 
hail  them  as  brethren  beloved,  with  whom  we  will  hold  it  a  privi- 
lege to  live  and  die;  but  short  of  this,  the  union  as  it  now  is, 
could  onl}'  be  a  bond  of  discord. 

"  But  whatever  may  be  our  action  or  the  final  result,  let  us 
exhibit  the  gentleness  and  moderation  of  Christianity  through- 
out; and  let  us  neither  say  nor  do  any  thing  in  relation  to  the 
subject,  upon  which  we  cannot  devoutly  implore  the  blessing 
of  God. 

"  We  believe  our  Northern  brethren  seriously  in  error  in  this 
matter.  We  do  know  assuredly,  that  the  measures  they  seem 
so  solicitous  to  adopt  in  relation  to  the  South,  would  effect  the 
ruin  of  the  Church  in  the  South,  and  blight  forever  the  best 
hopes  of  the  slaves  who  look  to  us  for  help  in  the  way  of 
salvation. 

"  Yet  we  accord  to  them  honesty  and  sincerity — ask  of  them 
the  same  liberality,  or  rather  justice.  We  wish  to  live  with 
them  under  a  common  jurisdiction;  but  if  they  will  not  permit 
this  but  on  terms  involving  the  ruin  of  the  Church  in  the  South, 
then  we  ask  to  remain  as  brethren  still,  but  under  separate 
jurisdictions. 

"  We  invite  them  to  join  us,  at  least,  in  humbly  asking  the 
blessing  of  God  on  the  South  and  North,  and  his  direction  and 
gracious  guidance  in  the  present  trials,  that  all  may  result  in 
the  jjromotion  of  his  glory,  and  the  great  good  of  the  Church. 

"  M.  M.  Henkle, 
"T.N.  Ralston, 
"B.  H.M'CovvN." 

The  Missouri  Conference  adopted  the  following  report  and 
resolutions  from  the  Committee  on  division: — 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  DIVISION. 

"The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  af  a 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  125 

division  of  the  Church  into  two  separate  General  Conference 
jurisdictions,  together  with  the  causes  and  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  same,  have  bestowed  upon  it,  in  the  most 
prayerful  and  religious  manner,  all  the  time  and  attention  they 
could  command  for  the  purpose,  and  beg  leave  to  present  the 
followmg  as  their  report: — 

"  That  inasmuch  as  the  Conference  is  presumed  to  be  well 
informed  on  the  merits  of  the  very  important  subject  upon 
which  the  committee  has  been  called  to  act,  it  was  not  deemed 
necessary  to  delay  this  report  by  an  extended  and  argumenta- 
tive investigation  of  the  matters  committed  to  them,  in  their 
various  relations,  principles,  and  bearings;  they  would,  therefore, 
present  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  Conference  by 
offering  for  adoption  the  following  resolutions: — 

"  Resolved.,  That  we  have  looked  for  many  years,  with  pain- 
ful apprehension  and  disapproval  upon  the  agitation  of  the 
slavery  and  abolition  subject  in  our  General  Conference,  and 
now  behold  with  sorrow  and  regret,  the  disastrous  results  which 
it  has  brought  about. 

"  Resolved,  That  while  w^e  accord  to  the  great  majority  of 
our  Northern  brethren  the  utmost  purity  of  intention,  and  while 
we  would  carefully  refrain  from  all  harsh  denunciations,  we 
are  compelled  to  pronounce  the  proceedings  of  the  late  General 
Conference  against  Bishop  Andrew,  extra-judicial  and  op- 
pressive. 

"  Resolved,  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  separation 
growing  out  of  these  proceedings,  and  that  we  do  most  sincerely 
hope  and  pray  that  some  effectual  means  not  inconsistent  with 
the  interests  and  honor  of  all  concerned,  may  be  suggested 
and  devised,  by  which  so  great  a  calamity  may  be  averted; 
and  to  this  end  we  recommend  that  our  societies  be  freely 
consulted  on  this  subject. 

"  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  convention  of 
delegates  from  the  Conferences  in  the^  slaveholding  States,  in 
the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  1st  day  of  May  next, 
agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  delegates  from  the 
Southern  and  South-western  Conferences,  in  the  late  General 
Conference;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by 
said  delegates,  to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members 
of  the  Conference,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted;  and 
that  this  Conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  con- 
vention upon  said  basis. 

^'■Resolved,  That  our  delegates  act  under  the  following  in- 
structions, to  wit:  to  oppose  the  division  of  the  Church,  unless 
such  division,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  be  found  to 
be  indispensable,  (and  consequently  unavoidable;)  and  should 
such  necessity  be  found  to  exist,  and  the  division  be  determined 

11* 


126  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

on,  then  and  in  that  event,  thatthe  Southern  and  South-western 
Conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  a  secession  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they  shall  be  recognised 
in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  co-ordinate  branch 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate  jurisdiction.  And 
further,  that  being  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church  as  it  is,  this  Conference  instruct  its  delegates  not  to 
support  or  favor  any  change  in  said  Discipline  by  said  con- 
vention. 

"  Resolved,  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of 
our  ministry  and  membership  can  be  effectually  secured  accord- 
ing to  the  Discipline,  against  future  aggressions,  we  shall  deem 
the  contemplated  division  as  unavoidable. 

"  Resolved,  That  should  the  proposed  convention,  represent- 
ing the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  slaveliolding  States,  appointed  to  assemble  at  the  city  of 
Louisville,  Kentucy,  the  1st  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate 
organization,  as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing 
resolutions,  then  in  that  event,  the  Convention  shall  be  regarded 
as  the  regular  General  Conference,  authorized  and  appointed 
by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Southern  division  of 
the  Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights,  powers,  and 
privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  subject  to 
the  same  restrictions,  limitations,  and  restraints. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  char- 
acter and  action  of  the  convention  as  a  General  Conference 
proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio 
of  representation  as  now  found  in  the  second  restrictive 
rule,  one  for  every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine 
the  constitutional  delegates,  taking  and  accrediting  as  such 
the  proper  number  from  each  Annual  Conference,  first  elected 
in  order,  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  a.s 
members  of  the  convention  to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of 
the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  coua  ention  proceed 
to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  neverthe- 
less, that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates  who  would  not  be 
excluded  from  the  General  Conference  proper,  by  the  operation 
of  the  above  regulation,  be  absent,  then  any  delegate  or 
delegates  present,  not  admitted  hy  said  regulations  as  a  mem- 
ber or  members  of  the  constitutional  General  Conference,  may 
lawfully  take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such  absent  delegates,  upon 
the  principle  of  selection  named  above. 

"  Resolved,  That  we  have  read  with  deep  regret  the  violent 
proceedings  of  some  of  our  Southern  brethren,  in  their  primaiy 
meetings,  against  some  of  our  Bishops  and  others;  and  that 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  127 

Ave  do  most  cordially  invite  to  our  pulpits  and  firesides  all  our 
Bishops  and  Northern  brethren,  who,  in  the  event  of  a  division, 
sdiall  belong  to  the  Northewi  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  preachers  shall  take  up  public  collections 
in  all  their  circuits  and  stations,  some  time  before  the  first  day 
of  March  next,  for  the  purpose  defraying  the  expenses  of  the 
delegates  to  the  above  named  convention,  and  pay  over  the 
same  to  the  delegates,  or  the  respective  presiding  elders,  so 
that  the  delegates  may  receive  the  same  before  starting  to  the 
convention.  "Wm.  Pattex,  ^ 

"Andrew  Monroe, 
"J.  Boyle, 
"W.  W.  Redman, 
".John  Glannville,  ^ Committee.'''' 

"E.  Perkins,  | 

"T.  W.  Chandler,  | 

"Jas.  G.  T.  Dunleavy,  I 
"John  Thatcher,  J 

The  following  resolutions  were  offered,  and  immediately 
adopted  by  the  Conference: — 

"  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  of  our  delegates  in 
their  action  at  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  and  the  part  they  took  in  the  subsequent  acfcs 
of  the  Southern  delegates,  growing  out  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  majority,  and  they  are  hereby  entitled  to  our  hearty  thanks 
for  their  manly  course  in  a  trying  crisis. 

"  Resolved,  That  we  invite  the  Bishops  of  our  Church,  who 
may  feel  free  to  do  so,  and  they  are  hereby  invited,  to  attend 
the  contemplated  convention  at  Loaisville,  Ky. 

"J.  H.  Linn, 
"  R.  Boyd." 

The  Holston  Conference  adopted  the  following  report  and 
l'e^solutions  from  the  Committee  on  Separation: — 
report  of  the  committee  on  separation. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  Church 
separation  and  other  matters  connected  therewith,  would 
respectfully  submit  the  following  report: — 

"  In  common  with  our  brethren  all  over  our  Avidely  extended 
Zion,  our  hearts  are  exceedingly  pained  at  the  prospect  of 
di.sunion,  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  Your  committee 
believe  this  action  to  be  extra-judicial,  and  forming  a  highly 
dangerous  precedent.  The  aspect  of  affairs  at  the  close 
of  the  General  Conference,  was  indeed  gloomy;  and  while 
we  have  sought  for  light  from  every  possible  source,  we 
cannot   believe  that  our  Church  papers  are  the  true  expo- 


128  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

nents  of  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  whole  South,  or  of  the 
whole  North.  We  would  respect  the  opinions  of  our  bretliren 
every  where,  but  we  feel  that  we  ^all  not  be  doing  justice  to 
ourselves,  the  Church,  or  the  world,  if  we  do  not  express  inde- 
pendently and  in  the  fear  of  God,  our  own  sentiments  on  this 
important  subject.  We  are  not  prepared  to  see  the  Church  of 
our  love  and  choice,  which  has  been  so  signally  blessed  of  God, 
and  cherished  by  the  tears,  prayers,  and  untiring  efforts  of  our 
fathers,  lacerated  and  torn  asunder,  without  one  more  effort 
to  bind  up  and  heal  her  bleeding  wounds.     Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  the  proposed  convention  to 
he  holden  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  May  1st,  1845;  and  will  elect 
delegates  to  said  convention,  according  to  the  ratio  agreed  upon 
at  the  last  General  Conference  by  the  Southern  delegates. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Conferences  in  the  non-slaveholding 
States  and  Territories,  be,  and  they  are  hereby  respectfully 
requested  to  elect  one  delegate  from  each  Annual  Conference, 
(either  in  Conference  capacity  or  by  the  presiding  elders,)  to 
meet  with  one  delegate  from  each  of  the  slaveholding  Confer- 
ences, in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  on  the  first  day  of  May, 
1845,  to  devise  some  plan  of  compromise.  And,  in  the  event 
tliat  the  non-slaveholding  Conferences,  or  any  number  of  them, 
which,  with  the  slaveholding  Conferences,  shall  make  a  respect- 
able majority  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  so  elect 
delegates, — then,  and  in  that  case,  the  delegates  which  we  will 
elect  from  this  Conference  to  the  Louisville  convention,  shall 
appoint  one  of  their  number  on  said  committee  of  compromise. 
And  the  Southern  and  South-western  Conferences  are  respect- 
fully requested  to  agree  to  and  act  upon  this  plan. 

"  Resolved,  That  if  nothing  can  be  etfected  on  the  foregoing 
plan,  then  the  delegates  from  this  Conference  are  instructed  to 
propose  to  the  Louisville  convention  the  following  or  some 
similar  plan,  as  the  basis  of  connection  between  the  two  Gen- 
eral Conferences — proposed  in  case  of  separate  organization: 
— The  said  General  Conferences  shall  appoint  an  equal  number 
of  delegates,  (say  ten,)  who  shall  meet  together  in  the  interim 
of  the  General  Conferences,  to  whom  shall  be  referred  for 
adjustment  all  matters  of  ditference  between  the  two  General 
Conferences,  or  those  Churches  over  which  they  exercise  juris- 
diction, their  decisions  or  propositions  for  adjustment  to  be 
referred  for  ultimate  action  to  the  General  Conferences  before 
mentioned;  and  when  both  General  Conferences  have  confirmed 
their  decision,  it  shall  be  final  and  binding  on  both  parties. 

"  Resolved,  That  if  both  the  foregoing  propositions  should 
fail,  then  the  delegates  from  this  Conference  are  instructed  to 
support  the  plan  of  separation  proposed  by  the  late  General 
Conference.     And  in  so  doing,  we  positively  disavow  seceasion, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  120 

but  declare  ourselves,  by  the  act  of  the  General  Conference,  a 
co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And 
in  the  event  of  either  the  second  or  third  proposition  obtaining, 
the  delegates  from  this  Conference  are  instructed  not  to  favor 
any — ^even  the  least — alteration  of  our  excellent  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, except  in  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  form  a  separate 
organization. 

"  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  to  the  late  General  Conference 
merit  the  warmest  expression  of  our  thanks,  for  their  prudent, 
yet  firm  course  in  sustaining  the  interests  of  our  beloved 
Methodism  in  the  South. 

'■'■Resolved,  That  we  warmly  commend  the  truly  Christian 
and  impartial  course  of  our  Bishops  at  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, and  we  atiectionately  invite  all  our  superintendent;^ 
to  attend  the  convention  to  be  holdcn  at  Louisville,  Ky. 

"  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"  T.  K.  Catlett, 

.  "  T.  SuLLINS, 

"  A.  H.  Mathes, 
"  Ephm.  E.  Wiley, 
"  David  Fleming, 

"  C.  FULTDN, 

"  R.  M.  vStevens, 
"J as.  Cumming, 
"O.F.Cunningham." 

The  followdng  report  and  resolutions,  from  the  Committee  on 
Separation,  Avere  adopted  by  the  Tennessee  Conference. 
keport  of  the  committee  on  separation. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  proposed  division 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  separate  and 
distinct  General  Conference  jurisdictions,  and  kindred  subjects, 
having  had  the  same  under  mature  consideration,  beg  leave  to 
submit  the  following: — 

"  Apprised  as  we  are,  that  the  actions  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  together  with  the  entire  merits  of  the  proceedings 
of  that  body,  leading  to  the  contemplated  separation  of  the 
Church,  have  been  fully  and  fairly  presented  to  our  people,  and 
that  both  the  ministry  and  membership  within  our  bounds  have, 
with  great  solicitude  and  prayerful  anxiety,  investigated  the  sub- 
ject in  its  various  relations,  principles,  and  bearings,  Ave  deem  it 
entirely  inexpedient  at  present  to  enter  into  detail  or  to  prepare 
an  elaborate  investigation  of  the  very  important  matters  com- 
mitted to  us;  therefore  your  committee  present  the  result  of 
their  deliberations  to  the  Conference,  by  the  offering  for  your 
consideration  and  adoption  the  following  resolutions: — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  candid  and  deliberate  judgment 


130  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

of  this  Conference,  that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, by  which  Bishop  Andrew  M^as  virtually  deposed,  as 
well  as  their  action  in  confirming  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  and  that  we  consider 
such  extra-judicial  proceeding  as  constituting  a  highly  danger- 
ous precedent. 

"  2.  That  under  the  great  affliction  caused  by  these  unfortu- 
nate proceedings,  we  did  most  ardently  hope  and  pray  that  the 
calamitous  consequences  might  have  been  averted.  But  since 
the  only  plausible  plan  of  reconciliation,  the  proposition  unani- 
mously recommended  by  our  beloved  superintendents,  w^as  put 
down  by  the  majority  in  the  late  General  Conference,  we 
honestly  confess  we  see  at  present  no  prospect  to  avoid  a 
separation. 

"3.  That  we  approve  the  holding  a  convention  of  delegates 
from  all  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city 
of  Louisville,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the 
recommendation  of  the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates 
in  the  late  General  Conference;  and  that  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation proposed  by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for 
every  eleven  members  of  Conference—be,  and  the  same  is 
hereby  adopted;  and  this  Conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the 
proposed  convention  upon  said  basis. 

"4.  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  the 
delegates  of  this  Conference  are  required  to  act  under  the 
following  instruction — to  ^vit,  that  the  Southern  and  South- 
western Conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  a  secession  from 
tlie  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they  shall  be  recog- 
nised in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate  jurisdiction.  And 
furthermore,  as  we  are  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  our 
Church  as  it  is,  this  Conference  instruct  its  delegates  not  to 
support  or  favor  any  change  in  said  Discipline  by  said  conven- 
tion; except  in  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  conform  it  in  its 
economical  arrangements  to  the  new  organization. 

"  5.  That  unless  we  can  be  well  assured  that  the  rights  of 
our  ministry  and  membership  can  be  effectually  secured  ao- 
cording  to  Discipline  against  future  aggression,  and  full  repara- 
tion be  made  for  past  injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contemplated 
division  unavoidable. 

"  G.  That  should  the  proposed  convention,  representing  the 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  appointed  to  assemble  in  the  city  of  Lou- 
isville, the  first  of  May  next,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization, 
as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions,  then 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  1  SI 

and  in  that  event  the  convention  shall  be  rej:^arded  as  the  regrilar 
General  Conference,  authorized  and  appointed  by  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church  in 
the  United  States,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  subject  to  the  same 
constitutional  limitations  and  restrictions. 

"  7.  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and 
action  of  the  Convention,  as  a  General  Conference  proper, 
should  a  separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation, as  now  found  in  the  second  restrictive  rulC;  one  for 
every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine  the  number  of 
constitutional  delegates,  taking  and  accrediting  as  such  the 
proper  number  from  the  Annual  Conference  liret  elected  in 
order;  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  as 
members  of  the  Convention  to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of 
the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  convention  proceed 
to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  neverthe- 
less, that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates  who  would  not  be 
excluded  from  the  General  Conference  proper,  by  the  operation 
of  the  above  regulation,  be  absent,  then  any  delegate  or  dele- 
gates present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulation  as  member  or 
members  of  the  constitutional  General  Conference,  may  law- 
fully take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such  absent  delegates,  upon  the 
principle  of  selection  named  above. 

"  8.  That  we  do  most  cordially  approve  the  course  of  our 
delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the  premises,  and 
that  we  tender  them  our  sincere  thanks  for  their  faithful  and 
independent  discharge  of  duty  in  a  trying  crisis. 

"  9.  That  the  Secretary  of  this  Conference  be  directed  to  have 
the  foregoing  preamble  and  resolutions  published  in  the  South- 
western Christian  Advocate. 

"  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"  F.  E.  Prrrs, 
"Joshua  Boucher, 
"  F.  G.  Ferguson, 
"  G.  W.  Dye, 
"  P.  P.  Neej.y, 
"  W.  D.  F.  Sawrie, 
"  Jno.  W.  Hanner, 
"  A.  F.  Driskill, 
"R.L.  Andrews." 
The  following  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  Conference: — 
"  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  invite  the  Bishops   of  the 
JMethodist   Episcopal    Church,   to    attend   the   convention    at 
Louisville,  Ky. 
"  Resolved,  That  the  preacher  in  charge  of  each  circuit  and 


132  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

station,  shall  lift  a  collection  before  the  first  day  of  April  next, 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  our  delegates  to  the  convention  at 
Louisville,  Kentucky.  The  funds  so  collected  shall  be  handed 
over  to  the  nearest  delegate  or  forwarded  to  the  Editor  of  the 
South-western  Christian  Advocate,  and  shall  be  equally  dis- 
tributed among  the  delegates  in  proportion  to  their  expenses; 
and  should  any  surpltis  accrue,  it  shall  be  returned  to  the  Con- 
ference at  its  next  session,  and  shall  be  applied  as  the  other  Con- 
ference funds,  in  making  up  the  deficiency  of  our  preachers,  &c. 

On  the  resolution  of  the  Holston  Conference  suggesting  a 
plan  of  compromise,  it  Avas  unanimously 

"  Resolved,  That  sympathizing  as  we  do  with  our  brethren  of 
the  Holston  Conference  in  the  feeling  of  deep  regret  for  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  separation  of  the  Southern  portion  of  our  Church  from 
the  Northern,  and  willing  as  we  w^ould  be  to  preserve  the  union 
of  our  beloved  Church,  upon  principles  safe  and  just  to  our- 
selves and  conservative  of  the  Discipline;  yet  inasmuch  as  any 
proposition  for  a  compromise  of  existing  difficulties,  which 
might  be  proposed  with  any  probability  of  success,  should  come 
in  an  authoritative  manner  from  the  Northern  section  of  the 
Chm'ch  and  believing  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Holston  Con- 
ference, would,  if  generally  adopted  by  the  South,  utterly  fail 
to  meet  the  object  contemplated,  therefore  we  cannot  agree  to 
the  proposition." 

The  following  report  and  resolutions  were  submitted  to  the 
Memphis  Conference,  by  their  Committee  on  Separation,  and 
was  unanimously  adopted: — • 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  SEPARATION. 

"  The  committee  to  M'^hom  was  referred  the  subject  of  tlie 
division  of  the  Church  into  two  separate  General  Conference 
jurisdictions,  and  all  matters  connected  therewith,  after  solemn- 
ly and  prayerfully  deliberating  upon  the  same,  present  the 
following  report.  Inasmuch  as  the  Conference  is  presumed  to 
be  well  informed  on  the  merits  of  the  subject,  we  deem  it 
unnecessary  to  consume  time,  by  entering  into  an  extended  and 
argumentative  investigation  of  the  various  relations,  principles, 
and  bearings  of  the  same,  but  proceed  at  once  to  offer  the 
following  resolutions  for  the  action  of  the  Conference. 

"  Resolved,  1 .  That  it  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  this  Con- 
ference, that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  virtually  deposing  Bishop  Andrew, 
and  also  their  action  in  affirming  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore 
Annual  Conference  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  are 
not  sustained  by  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  and  that  we 
consider  these  proceedings  as  constituting  a  highly  dangerous 
precedent. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  133 

"  2.  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  division  growing 
out  of  these  proceedings,  and  do  most  sincerely  and  devoutly 
pray  to  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  that  some  effectual 
means,  not  inconsistent  with  the  interests  of  the  cause  of  Christ, 
or  the  honor  of  all  concerned,  may  be  suggested  and  devised, 
by  M'hich  so  great  a  calamity  may  be  averted,  and  our  long 
cherished  union  preserved  and  perpetuated. 

"3.  That  we  approve  the  holding  a  convention  of  delegates 
from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably 
to  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  and  South-western 
delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference;  and  that  the  ratio  of 
representation  proposed  by  said  delegates,  to  wit,  one  delegate 
for  every  eleven  members  of  Conference,  be,  and  the  same  is 
hereby  adopted;  and  that  this  Conference  will  elect  delegates 
to  the  proposed  convention  on  said  basis. 

"  4.  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  the 
delegates  of  this  Conference  are  hereby  required  to  act  under 
the  following  instructions,  to  wit:  That  the  Southern  and 
South-western  Conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  having  by 
such  division  seceded  from  the  jMethodist  Episcopal  Church;  but 
they  shall  be  recognised  in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes", 
as  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate 
jurisdiction.  And  further,  that  being  well  satisfied  with  the 
Discipline  of  the  Church  as  it  now  is,  this  Conference  instructs 
its  delegates  not  to  support  or  favor  any  change  in  said  Discip- 
line, by  said  convention,  only  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  perfect 
a  Southern  organization. 

"  5 .  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  minis- 
try and  membership  will  be  effectually  secured,  according  to  Dis- 
cipline,against  future  aggressions, and  full  reparation  be  made  for 
past  injury , we  shall  deem  the  contemplated  division  unavoidable . 
"  6.  That  should  the  proposed  convention,  representing  the 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  appointed  to  assemble  at  the  city  of  Louis- 
ville, on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate 
organization,  as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing 
resolutions;  then,  and  in  that  event,  the  convention  shall  be 
regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference,  authorized  and 
appointed  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Southern 
division  of  the  Church,  and  as  possessing  ail  the  rights,  powers, 
and  privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  subject 
to  the  same  restrictions,  limitations,  and  restraints. 

"  7.  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and 
action  of  the  convention,  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should 
a  separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of  representation 

12 


134  HISTORY   or   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

as  it  now  stands  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every 
twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine  the  constitutional 
delegates,  taking  as  such,  the  proper  number  from  each  Annual 
Conference,  first  elected  in  order,  and  that  the  remaining 
delegates  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  convention  to  delib- 
erate, but  not  members  of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should 
the  convention  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South. 
Provided,  nevertheless,  that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates 
\\ho  would  not  be  excluded  from  the  General  Conference 
proper,  by  the  operation  of  the  foregoing  regulation,  be  absent, 
then,  any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said 
regulation  as  a  member  or  members  of  the  constitutional  Gen- 
eral Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such 
absent  delegates  upon  the  principles  of  selection  before  named. 
"  8.  That  we  have  witnessed  with  sorrow  and  disapproba- 
tion, alike  the  violence  manifested  by  some  at  the  South,  and 
the  ultraism  displayed  by  others  at  the  A^orth,  and  that  we  regret 
ex'ceedingly  that  any  Annual  Conference  should  have  deemed 
it  necessary  to  refuse  to  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the 
late  General  Conference  to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article — 
nevertheless,  we  shall  entertain  for  our  brethren  of  the  North, 
the  feelings  of  Christian  kindness  and  brotherly  love. 

"9.  That  we  heartily  approve  the  entire  course  pursued  by 
our  delegates  at  the  late  General  Conference. 

"10.  That  we  cordially  invite  such  of  our  Bishops,  as  may 
deem  it  proper,  to  be  present  at  the  contemplated  convention 
in  Louisville. 

"11.  That  it  be  made  the  duty  of  each  preacher  to  take  up 
a  public  collection  in  every  congregation  under  his  charge,  for 
the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  delegates  to  the 
convention,  and  that  such  collections  be  taken  up  previous  to 
the  first  Sabbath  in  April  next,  and  immediately  transmitted 
to  some  one  of  the  delegates.  And  that  the  delegates  be 
required  to  report  to  the  next  Annual  Conference  the  sums 
received  by  them  for  this  purpose,  together  with  the  amount 
expended  by  them  in  attending  said  convention. 

"  12.  That  the  Secretary  of  this  Conference  be  instructed  to 
forward  the  foregoing  to  the  South-western  Christian  Advocate 
for  publication,  with  a  request  that  all  other  Church  papers 
copy.  "  Moses  Brock, 

"Joseph  Travis, 
''  Thomas  Smith, 
"  M.  J.  Blackwell, 
"J.  T.  Baskerville, 
"  D.  J.  Allen, 
"  B.  H.  Hubbard, 
"  William  Pearson, 
"A.T.  Scruggs." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  135 

The  Mississippi  Conference  adopted  the  following  preamble 
and  resolutions: — • 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OX  DIVISION. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the 
contemplated  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have 
endeavored  to  examine  the  subject  carefully,  and  in  a  spirit  of 
reliance  upon  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God  for  direction. 

*'  Your  committee  can  but  deplore  the  existence  of  such 
causes  as  compel  the  Church  of  our  choice  to  meditate  a 
severance  of  that  union  which  has  so  long  existed,  and  which, 
under  God,  has  contributed  so  efficiently  to  the  spread  of 
Scriptural  holiness  through  these  lands.  But  we  are  fully 
convinced  that  justice  to  ourselves,  as  well  as  compassion  for 
the  slaves,  demand  an  unqualified  disapproval  of  the  action 
of  the  late  General  Conference;  first,  in  confirming  the  de- 
cision of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  the  case  of  Rev.  F.  A. 
Harding;  and  secondly,  in  virtually  suspending  Bishop  Andrew 
from  the  episcopacy,  not  only  Avithout  law  or  usage,  but  in 
direct  contravention  of  all  law,  and  in  defiance  of  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  which  provides, 
'  that  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  general  rule  of 
the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of 
slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of  slave  property,  in  the  States  oi- 
Territories  where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation  and 
permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no 
legal  barrier  to  the  election  or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the 
various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot  therefore  be  considered  as 
operating  any  forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  and 
ordination.' 

"  With  the  abstract  question  of  slavery  we  are  not  now 
concerned,  nor  do  we  regard  it  as  a  subject  on  which  the, 
Church  has  a  right  to  legislate;  neither  are  we  disposed  in  this 
report  to  state  the  full  extent  of  our  grievances,  or  to  investi- 
gate the  reasons  which  impose  upon  us  the  necessity  of 
planning  an  amicable  separation.  Your  committee  deeply 
regret  the  injury  which  may  be  inflicted  upon  our  beloved  Zion 
by  the  intemperate  and  unjust  denunciation  of  the  7rholc  North 
by  those  who  have  occasion  to  complain  of  the  illegal  and 
oppressive  course  pursued  by  the  majority  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  and  most  earnestly  recommend  the  exercise  of 
that  charity  which  '  suffereth  long  and  is  kind.'  As  the  result 
of  our  prayerful  examination  of  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings, 
we  oifer  the  following  resolutions  for  your  consideration  and 
adoption: — 

^^  Resolved,  1.  That  the  decision  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference in  the  cases  of  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew, 


136  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

was  unauthorized  by  the  DiscipHne  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  that  a  tame  submission  to  them  upon  the  part  of 
the  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  would  prevent  our  access 
to  the  slaves,  and  expose  us  to  suspicions  destructive  to  our 
general  usefulness. 

"  Resolved,  2.  That  as  no  authorized  plan  of  compromise 
has  been  suggested  by  the  North,  and  as  all  the  propositions 
made  by  the  Southern  delegates  were  rejected,  we  regard 
a  separation  as  inevitable,  and  approve  the  holding  of  a 
convention,  to  meet  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day 
of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern 
and  South-western  delegates  to  the  late  General  Conference; 
and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said  delegates, 
to  wit:  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted,  and  that  this 
Conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  convention  upon 
said  basis.  Provided,  however,  that,  if  in  the  providence  of 
God,  any  plan  of  compromise,  which  in  the  judgment  of  our 
delegates  will  redress  our  grievances  and  effectually  secure  to 
us  the  full  exercise  and  peaceable  enjoyment  of  all  our 
Disciplinary  rights,  should  be  proposed  in  time  to  prevent 
disunion,  we  will  joyfully  embrace  it. 

'■'■Resolved,  3.  That  our  delegates  to  said  convention  shall 
be  empowered  to  co-operate  with  the  delegates  to  said  con- 
vention from  the  other  Conferences,  in  adopting  such  measiu-es 
as  they  shall  deem  necessary  for  the  complete  organization  of 
a  Southern  Church,  provided  that  it  conform  in  all  its  essential 
features  to  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
"  Resolved,  4.  That  the  course  pursued  by  our  immediate 
representatives  in  the  late  General  Conference,  was  and  is 
approved  by  us. 

'■'■Resolved,  5.  That  the   conciliatory  spirit  evinced  by   our 
general  superintendents  entitles  them  to  the  unqualified  ap- 
probation of  the  whole  Church,  and  that  we  do  most  cordially 
invite  them  to  attend  the  proposed  convention. 
"  All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"  D.  O.  Shattuck, 
"  Wm.  H.  Watkins, 
"  Jno.  G.  Jones, 
"  B.  Pipkin, 
"  L.  Campbell, 
"  Jno.  N.  Hamill, 
"  A.  T.  M.  Fly, 
"  David  M.  Wiggins, 
"W.  G,  Gould. 
"  Eighty-one  voting,  concurring  in  the  change  of  the  sixth 
restrictive  rule — none  non-concurring. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOCTH.  137 

"  Resolved,  That  the  first  Fiiday  in  May  next  be  set  apart 
as  a  day  of  special  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  su])erintendenc<j 
and  direction  of  Divine  Providence,  with  regard  to  our  Church 
difiiculties,  that  the  delegates  may  act  so  as  to  bring  the 
greatest  glory  to  God  and  the  most  good  to  his  Church. 

"  The  committee  to  M'hom  Avas  referred  the  resolutions  of 
the  Ilolston  Conference,  have  had  the  same  under  consideration, 
and  although  we  hold  ourselves  in  readiness  to  accept  any 
plan  of  pacification  which  obliterates  the  distinction  between 
Northern  and  Southern  Methodists,  we  do  not  regard  the  reso- 
lutions of  the  Ilolston  Conference  as  sanctioned  by  the  North, 
or  practicable  in  itself.     Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  do  not  concur. 

'-'D.  O.  Shattuck, 
^Wm.  Hamilton  Watkins, 
"Jno.  G.  Jones, 
"B.  Pipkin, 
"L.  Campbell, 
"J.  N.  IIamill, 
"A.  T.  M.  Flv, 
"D.  M.  Wiggins, 
"Wm.  G.  Gol'ld. 
"  Seventj'-three  non-concurring — none  concurring. 

The  following  report  and  resolutions  from  the  Committee  of 
Seven,  were  adopted  by  the  Arkansas  Conference: — 

EEl'ORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  DIVISION. 

"The  committee  to  whom  Avas  referred  the  several  su])jects 
connected  with  the  prospective  division  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  have  had  the  same  under  calm  and  prayerful 
consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  present  the  following  as  the 
result  of  their  honest  deliberations. 

"  Being  well  convinced  that  the  members  of  this  body  have 
not  been  inattentive  to  the  proceedings  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  and  that  they  have  not  failed  to  derive  some 
information  from  the  numerous  addresses  and  communications 
that  have  appeared  in  our  periodicals,  your  committee  have 
not  been  disposed  to  waste  their  time,  nor  insult  your  judgments 
l)y  detailing  the  many  circumstances  Avhich,  were  you  difier- 
ently  situated,  would  require  amplification, — they,  therefore, 
present  to  your  minds,  for  consideration  and  action,  the  sub- 
joined resolutions: — 

"1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  decided  opinion  of  this  Con- 
ference, that  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
does  not  sustain  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  in 
the  cases  of  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That   \\c    approve     the    suggestions   of    the 

12* 


138  HISTORY   OF   THE   ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

Bishops,  as  well  as  the  request  of  several  Southern  delegates, 
which  contemplated  the  postponing  of  the  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  until  the  wishes  of  the  whole  Church  could  be 
consulted. 

"3.  Resolved,  That,  as  we  see  no  probability  that  repara- 
tion will  be  made  for  past  injuries,  and  no  security  given  that 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  ministry  and  membership  in 
the  slaveholding  Conferences  will  be  equally  respected,  we 
believe  it  is  the  imperative  duty,  if  not  the  only  alternative,  of 
the  South,  to  form  a  separate  organization.  Nevertheless, 
should  honorable  and  satisfactory  propositions  for  pacification 
be  made  by  the  North,  we  shall  expect  om*  delegates  to  favor 
the  perpetuation  of  the  union. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  convention 
of  delegates  from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May, 
1845,  agreeabl}^  to  the  recommendation  of  the  delegates  from 
the  Southern  and  South-v^^estern  Conferences,  in  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  should  the  proposed  convention,  repre- 
senting the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  appointed  to  assemble  at  Louisville,  Kentucky,  the 
first  day  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization,  as 
contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions,  then,  in 
that  event,  the  convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular 
General  Conference,  authorized  and  appointed  by  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  in  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church, 
and  as  possessing  all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  subject  to  the  same  restrictions, 
limitations,  and  restraints. 

"  6.  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  char- 
acter and  action  of  the  convention  as  a  General  Conference 
proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take  place,  the  ratio  of 
representation,  as  now  found  in  the  second  restrictive  rule, 
one  for  every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine  the 
constitutional  delegates,  taking  and  accrediting  as  such  the 
l)roper  number  from  each  Annual  Conference,  first  elected  in 
order;  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  as 
members  of  the  convention  to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of 
the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  convention  proceed 
to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  neverthe- 
less, that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates  who  would  not  be 
excluded  from  the  General  Conference  proper,  by  the  operation 
of  the  above  regulation,  be  absent,  then  any  delegate  or 
delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulation  as  a  member 
or   members  of  the   constitutional  General   Conference,  may 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  139 

lawfully  take  the  seats  of  such  absent  delegates,  upon   the 
principle  of  selection  named  above. 

"  7.  Resolved,  That,  as  we  are  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  it  is,  we  hereby  instruct 
our  delegates  to  said  convention  not  to  favor  any  change 
therein. 

"  8.  Resolved,  That,  though  we  feel  ourselves  aggrieved,  and 
have  been  wounded,  without  cause,  in  the  house  of  our  friends, 
we  have  no  disposition  to  impute  wrong  motives  to  the  majority 
in  the  late  General  Conference,  and  no  inclination  to  endorse 
those  vindictive  proceedings  had  in  some  portions  of  the  South, 
believing  it  to  be  the  duty  of  Christians,  under  all  circumstances, 
to  exercise  that  charity  which  hcareth  all  things. 

"  9.  Resolved,  That  the  preachers  take  up  collections  on  their 
several  circuits  and  stations,  at  an  early  period,  and  hand  the 
money  collected  to  their  presiding  elders,  that  the  delegates 
may  receive  the  whole  amount  collected  before  they  shall  be 
required  to  start  for  Louisville. 

"  10,  Resolved,  That  we  tender  our  warmest  thanks  to  our 
representatives  in  the  late  General  Conference,  for  the  stand 
which  they  took,  with  others,  in  defence  of  our  Disciplinary 
rights. 

"11.  Resolved,  That  the  Bishops  generally  be,  and  they  hereby 
are  requested,  if  it  be  congenial  with  their  feelings,  to  attend 
the  convention  at  Louisville. 

"  12.  Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  our  people  the  observ- 
ance of  the  first  of  May  next  as  a  day  of  humiliation  and 
prayer,  that  the  divine  presence  may  attend  the  deliberations 
of  the  convention.  "  John  Harrell, 

"  Fountain  Brown, 
"J.  B.  Annis, 
"  Jacob  Custer, 
"  Adexander  Avery, 
"J.  F.  Truslow." 

The  Virginia  Conference  adopted  the  following  preamble 
and  resolutions,  as  reported  by  the  committee  on  separation: — 

REPORT    OF    THE  COMMITTEE    ON    SEPARATION. 

"The  committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolutions  of 
the  late  General  Conference,  recommending  to  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  at  their  first  approaching  sessions,  to  authorize  a 
change  of  the  sixth  Restrictive  Article,  so  that  the  first  clause 
shall  read,  '  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the 
Book  Concern  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund  to  any  purpose, 
other  than  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and 
worn-out  Preachers,  their  wives,  widows  and  children,  and  to 
such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  on  by  the  votes  of 


140  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

two  thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference,' — and 
to  whom  was  also  referred  the  Address  of  the  Southern 
delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference,  recommending  a 
Southern  Convention,  to  be  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on 
tlie  first  day  of  May,  1845;  together  with  the  proceedings  of 
various  primary  and  quarterly  conference  meetings  within  the 
bounds  of  the  Virginia  Conference  on  the  subject  of  a  separation 
from  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  beg  leave  to  report, — 

"  That  having  maturely  considered  these  subjects,  they  do 
not  deem  it  necessary  to  present  an  argument  upon  the 
various  topics  submitted  to  them;  but  that  the  duty  assigned 
tliem  Avill  probably  be  more  satisfactorily  accomplished  in  the 
following  series  of  resolutions,  viz: — ■ 

^^  Resolved,  1.  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of 
the  late  CTeneral  Conference  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive 
ai'ticle  of  the  Discipline  of  our  Church. 

"  Resolved,  2.  That,  from  the  ample  sources  of  information 
before  your  committee,  in  numerous  primary  meetings,  which 
have  been  held  in  various  charges  within  om'  pastoral  limits, 
and  the  proceedings  of  quarterly  meeting  conferences,  which 
we  have  the  most  sufficient  reason  to  regard  as  a  fair  and  full 
exponent  of  the  mind  and  will  of  the  membership  upon  the 
subject  of  the  action  of  the  recent  General  Conference,  and 
the  propriety  of  division, — we  are  of  opinion,  that  it  is  the 
mind  of  the  laity  of  the  Church,  with  no  exception  sufficient 
to  be  regarded  as  the  basis  of  action,  that,  whilst  they  seriously 
deprecate  division,  considered  relatively,  and  most  earnestly 
wish  that  some  ground  of  permanent  union  could  have  been 
found,  they  see  no  alternative,  and  therefore  approve  of  a 
peaceable  separation  in  the  present  circumstances  of  our 
condition;  and  in  this  opinion  and  this  determination  your  com- 
mittee unanimously  concur. 

"  Resolved,  3.  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the 
Southern  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference,  that  there 
be  a  Southern  Convention,  to  be  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky, 
on  the  1st  day  of  May,  1845;  and  in  the  objects  of  this  Co?ivention, 
as  is  contemplated  in  the  address  of  the  Southern  delegates. 

"  Resolved,  4.  That  while  we  do  not  propose  to  dissolve  our 
connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  only 
ivitli  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco]5al  Church, 
Ave  are,  therefore,  entitled  to  our  full  portion  of  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  appertaining  to  the  property  of  the  Church. 
Nevertheless,  our  delegates  to  the  convention  to  be  held  in 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May,  1845,  are  hereby  instructed  not 
to  allow  the  question  of  property  to  enter  into  the  calculation 
whether  or  not  we  shall  exist  as  a  separate  organization. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  141 

"  Rcsoho-d,  5.  That  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  was  in  violation  of  the  pro- 
visional rule  of  the  Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and 
in  derogation  of  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  Episcopal 
Office:  It  was,  therefore,  equally  opposed  to  the  rights  of  the 
Southern  portion  of  the  Church,  and  of  those  of  the  incum- 
bents of  the  Episcopal  Office.  But  more  than  this;  it  was  an 
effi)rt  to  accomplish,  by  legislative  action,  what  it  was  only 
competent  for  them  to  do,  if  at  all,  by  regular  judicial  process; 
the  very  attempt  was  an  acknowledgment  that  there  was  no 
rule  of  Discipline,  under  which  he  could  either  be  deposed  or 
censured — and  that  the  General  Conference,  being  unrestrained 
by  the  authority  of  law,  was  supreme.  Thus,  both  the  Episco- 
pal Office  and  its  incumbents  were  taken  from  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  constitutional  restriction,  and  the  provisional 
rule  of  Discipline,  by  which  it  was  made  a  co-ordinate  branch 
of  the  government,  and  placed  at  the  caprice  of  a  majority, 
which  claims  that  its  mere  will  is  the  law  of  the  Church. 

"Bishop  Andrew,  therefore,  in  refusing  to  resign  his  office, 
or  otherwise  yield  to  this  unwarranted  assumption  of  authority 
on  the  part  of  the  General  Conference,  has  taken  a  noble 
stand  upon  the  platform  of  constitutional  law,  in  defence  of 
the  Episcopal  Office  and  the  rights  of  the  South,  which  entitles 
him  to  the  cordial  approbation  and  support  of  every  friend  of 
the  Church;  and  we  hereby  tender  him  a  unanimous  ex- 
pression of  our  admiration  of  his  firmness  in  resisting  the 
misrule  of  a  popular  majority. 

"  Resolved,  6.  That  we  cordially  approve  the  course  of  the 
Southern  and  South-western  delegates  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  in  resisting  with  so  much  constancy  and  firmness 
the  encroachments  of  the  majority  upon  the  rights  of  the 
South;  and  for  so  faithfully  warning  them  against  the  tendency 
of  those  measures,  which  we  fear  do  inevitably  draw  after 
them  the  dissolution  of  our  ecclesiastical  union. 

"  John  Earlev, 

"Thomas  Crowder, jr., 

"  Wm.  a.  Smith, 

"  Abram  Penn, 

"  Geo.  W.  Nolley, 

"  Anthony  Dibrell, 

"  H.  B.  COWLES, 
"  D.  S.   DOGGETT, 

"Jos.  H.  Davis. 
"  The  recommendation  to  change  the  sixth  Restrictive  Arti- 
cle was  concurred  in — eighty-one  in  favor,  and  none  against 
it,  and  the  whole  Report  of  the  committee  was  unanimously 
adopted  by  the  Conference. 


142  HISTORY    OF  THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

The  North  Carolina  Conference  adopted  the  follo"w-mg  report 
and  resolutions  from  the  Committee  on  Division: — 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  DIVISION. 

"  The  committee  to  M^hom  the  resolution  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  respecting  the  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive 
rule,  the  report  of  the  select  Committee  of  Nine,  on  the 
declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and  the  reports  of 
numerous  voluntary  meetings,  both  of  ministers  and  people, 
within  the  bounds  of  North  Carolina  Conference,  were  referred, 
beg  leave  to  report: — 

"  Your  committee  deeply  regret  the  division  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  "which  the  course  of  the  majority  in  the  late 
General  Conference  renders  not  only  necessary  but  inevitable. 
The  unity  of  the  Church,  so  long  the  boast  and  praise  of  Meth- 
odism, was  a  feature  greatly  admired,  and  more  than  esteemed, 
by  Southern  Methodists.  For  its  promotion  and  preservation 
they  were  willing  to  surrender  any  thing  but  principle — vital 
principle.  This  they  could  not  do! — this  they  dare  not  do! — 
The  course  of  the  late  General  Conference  demanded  a  sub- 
mission on  the  part  of  the  ministers  in  the  slaveholding  Con- 
ferences, which  the  Discipline  did  not  require  and  the  institutions 
of  the  South  absolutely  forbade.  To  have  yielded,  therefore, 
would  have  opened  a  breach  in  Methodism  wholly  subversive 
of  the  Church  and  greatly  mischievous  to  the  civil  community 
— to  have  yielded  would  have  been  ruin.  This,  therefore,  they 
refused  to  do;  absolutely  refused!  With  the  Discipline  in  their 
hands,  sustained  and  upheld  by  it,  they  protested  against  the 
proceedings  of  the  majority,  with  an  unfaltering  and  manly 
voice,  declaring  them  to  be  not  only  unauthorized  but  uncon- 
stitutional. The  protestation,  however,  just  and  legal  as  it  was, 
authorized  and  borne  out  by  the  Discipline,  was  altogether 
unavailing.  Nothing  was  left  for  the  South  to  do,  but  to  pass 
'  from  under  the  jurisdiction  of  so  wayward  a  power,  to  the 
regulations  and  government  of  our  old,  wholesome,  and  Scrip-' 
tural  Discipline.  This,  we  sorrow  when  we  say  it,  has  opened 
a  great  gulf — we  fear  an  impassable  gulf — between  the  North 
'and  the  South.  This  consolation,  however,  if  no  other,  they 
have — the  good  Book  of  Discipline,  containing  the  distinctive 
features  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  shall  still  lie  on 
the  South  side.  Compelled  by  circumstances  which  could 
neither  be  alleviated  nor  controlled — which  neither  the  entrea- 
ties of  kindness  nor  the  force  of  truth  could  successfully  resist, 
we  hesitate  not  to  decide  on  being  forever  separate  from  those 
whom  we  not  only  esteem  but  love.  Better  far  that  we  should 
suffer  the  loss  of  union,  than  that  thousands,  yea  millions  of 
souls  should  perish. 

"From  the  reports  of  quarterly  meeting  conferences  and 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  143 

numerous  voluntary  meetings  within  the  bounds  of  the  North 
Carolina  Conference,  both  of  ministers  and  people,  we  feel 
assured  that  it  is  the  mind  of  our  people  and  preachers  fully 
to  sustain  the  action  of  the  Southern  and  South-western  dele- 
gates, as  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  and  Protest:  and  therefore, 
"  1 .  Resolved,  That  the  time  has  come  for  the  ministers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  to 
refuse  to  act  in  union  with  the  North. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  proposed  alteration  of 
the  sixth  Restrictive  Rule  of  the  Discipline. 

"3,  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  to 
hold  a  Convention  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May,  1845. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  elect  delegates  to  said  Con- 
vention according  to  the  basis  of  representation  recommended. 
"  5.  Resolved,  That  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference, 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  was  a  violation  of  the  rule  of  Dis- 
cipline on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of 
the  Episcopal  Office,  by  throwing  it  from  under  the  protection  of 
law,  and  exposing  it  to  the  reproach  and  obloquy  of  misrule 
and  lawless  power.  The  Bishop,  therefore,  acted  justly  and 
honorably  in  resisting  such  action  and  declining  obedience  to 
the  resolution  of  said  Conference;  and  for  thus  guarding  and 
respecting  the  rights  of  the  South,  both  of  ministers  and  people, 
he  is  entitled  to  our  highest  regards. 
"  Ail  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"  H.  G.  Leigh, 
"  S.  S.  Bryant, 
"  .Jas.  Jameson, 
"P.  DouB, 
"  Bennet  T.  Blake, 
^  "  "  James  Reid, 

"D.  B.  Nicholson, 
"  R.  J.  Carson, 
"  Wm.  Carter. 
"  The  above  report  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Con- 
ference.    On  the  question  of  concurrence  in  altering  the  sixth 
Restrictive  Rule,  the  vote  was  ayes  58 — nays  none. 

"S.  S.  Bryant, 
"  Sec'ij.  of  N.  C.  An.  Conf 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  w^ere  adopted  by 
the  South  Carolina  Conference,  relative  to  the  subject  of 
separation: — 

THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COAIMITTEE  ON  SEPARATION. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  general  subject 
of  the  difficulties  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference  on  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  brother  Hard- 


144  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

ing;  and,  in  particular,  the  report  of  the  select  committee  on 
the  Declaration  of  the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates 
of  the  General  Conference,  as  adopted  by  the  Conference;  and 
the  proceedings  of  numerous  quarterly  conferences,  and  other 
meetings,  in  all  parts  of  our  Annual  Conference  district;  re- 
spectfully offer  the  following  Report: — 

"  It  appears  to  your  committee,  on  the  evidence  of  numerous 
documents,  and  the  testimony  of  the  preachers,  in  open  Con- 
ference, that  in  all  the  circuits  and  stations  of  this  Conference 
district,  the  people  have  expressed  their  minds  with  respect  to 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  measures  proper 
to  be  adopted  in  consequence  of  that  action.  Resolutions  to 
that  effect  have  been  adopted  by  the  quarterly  conferences  of  all 
the  circuits  and  stations,  without  any  exception;  and  in  many, 
perhaps  in  most  of  them,  by  other  meetings  also,  which  have 
been  called  expressly  for  the  purpose;  and  in  some  of  them, 
by  meetings  held  at  every  preaching-place  where  there  v^^as  a 
society.  And  on  all  these  occasions,  there  has  been  but  one 
voice  uttered — one  opinion  expressed — from  the  sea-board  to 
the  mountains,  as  to  the  unconstitutionality  and  injurious 
character  of  the  action  i,n  the  cases  above  named;  the  ne- 
cessity which  that  action  imposes  for  a  separation  of  the 
Southern  from  the  Northern  Conferences,  and  the  expediency 
and  propriety  of  holding  a  convention  at  Louisville,  Ken- 
tucky, and  of  your  sending  delegates  to  it,  agreeably  to  the 
proposition  of  the  Southern  and  South-western  delegates  of 
the  late  General  Conference. 

"  Your  committee,  also,  have  made  diligent  inquiry  both  out 
of  Conference  and  by  calling  openly  in  Conference  for  in- 
formation from  the  preachers,  as  to  the  number,  if  any,  of 
local  preachers,  or  other  official  members,  or  members  of  some 
standing  among  us,  who  should  have  expressed,  in  the  meet- 
ings or  in  private,  a  different  opinion  from  that  which  the 
meetings  have  proclaimed.  And  the  result  of  this  inquiry  has 
been,  that,  in  the  whole  field  of  our  Conference  district,  one 
individual  only  has  been  heard  to  express  himself  doubtfully, 
as  to  the  expediency  of  a  separate  jurisdiction  for  the  Southern 
and  South-western  Conferences;  not  even  one  as  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  General  Conference  action.  Nor  does  it  appear 
that  this  unanimity  of  the  people  has  been  brought  about  by 
popular  harangues,  or  any  schismatic  efforts  of  any  of  the 
preachers,  or  other  influential  persons;  but  that  it  has  been 
as  spontaneous  as  universal,  and  from  the  time  that  the  final 
action  of  the  General  Conference  became  known,  at  every 
place.  Your  committee  state  this  fact  thus  formally,  that  it 
may  correct  certain  libelous  imputations  which  have  been  cast 
on  some  of  our  senior  ministers,  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  145 

Journal;  as  well  as  for  the  evidence  which  it  furnishes  of  the 
necessity  of  the  measures  ^vhich  are  in  progress  for  the  relief 
of  the  Church  in  the  South  and  South-west. 

"  Your  committee  also  consider  it  due  to  state,  that  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the 
cases  of  the  Bishop  and  of  brother  Harding,  proceeded  of  ill- 
will,  as  of  purpose  to  oppress  us;  nor  of  any  intended  disre- 
gard of  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  or  of  the  Discipline,  as 
if  to  effect  the  designs  of  a  politico-religious  faction,  without 
warrant  of  the  Scriptures,  and  against  the  Discipline  and  the 
peace  of  the  Church.  But  they  consider  that  action  as  having 
been  produced  out  of  causes  which  had  their  origin  in  the 
fanatical  abolitionism  of  Garrison  and  others;  and  which, 
being  suffered  to  enter  and  agitate  the  Church,  first  in  New 
England  and  afterwards  generally  at  the  North,  worked  up 
such  a  revival  of  the  anti-slavery  spirit  as  had  grown  too 
strong  for  the  restraints  of  either  Scripture  or  Discipline,  and 
too  general  through  the  Eastern,  Northern,  and  North-western 
Conferences  to  be  resisted  any  longer  by  the  easy,  good-na- 
tured prudence  of  the  brethren  representing  those  Conferences 
in  the  late  General  Conference.  Pressed  beyond  their  strength, 
whether  little  or  much,  they  had  to  give  M'^ay;  and  reduced, 
(by  the  force  of  principles  which,  whether  by  their  own  fault 
or  not,  had  obtained  a  controlling  power,)  to  the  alternative 
of  breaking  up  the  Churches  of  their  own  Conference  districts, 
or  adopting  measures  which  they  might  hardly  persuade 
themselves  could  be  endured  by  the  South  and  South-west, 
tliey  determined  on  the  latter.  The  best  of  men  may  have 
their  judgments  perverted;  and  it  is  not  wonderful  that  under 
such  stress  of  circumstances,  the  majority  should  have  adopted 
a  new  construction  of  both  Scripture  and  Discipline,  and  per- 
suaded themselves  that  in  pacifying  the  abolitionists,  they 
were  not  unjust  to  their  Southern  brethren.  Such,  however, 
is  unquestionably  the  character  of  the  measures  they  adopted; 
and  which  the  Southern  Churches  cannot  possibly  submit  to, 
unless  the  majority  who  enacted  them  could  also  have  brought 
us  to  a  conviction  that  we  ought  to  be  bound  by  their  judg- 
ment, against  our  consciences  and  calling  of  God,  and  the 
warrant  of  Scripture,  and  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline. 
But  while  we  believe  that  our  paramount  duty  in  our  calling 
of  God,  positively  forbids  our  yielding  the  Gospel  in  the 
Southern  States,  to  the  pacification  of  abolitionism  in  the 
Northern,  and  the  convicfion  is  strong  and  clear  in  our  own 
minds  that  Ave  have  both  the  warrant  of  Scripture  and  the 
plain  provisions  of  the  Discipline  to  sustain  us,  we  see  no  room 
to  entertain  any  proposition  for  compromise,  under  the  late 
action  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  brother  Harding, 

13 


146  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

and  the  principles  avowed  for  the  maintenance  of  that  action, 
short  of  what  has  been  shadowed  forth  in  the  Report  of  the 
select  committee  which  we  have  had  mider  consideration,  and 
the  measures  recommended  by  the  Southern  and  South-western 
delegates  at  their  meeting  after  the  General  Conference  had 
closed  its  session. 

"  Your  committee  do,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption  of 
the  following  resolutions: — 

'''  1 .  Resolved,  That  it  is  necessary  for  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  the  slaveholding  States  and  Territories,  and  in  Texas, 
to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  agreeably  to 
the  provisions  of  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  of  Nine 
of  the  late  General  Conference,  adopted  on  the  8th  day  of 
June  last. 

"2.  liesohed,  That  we  consider  and  esteem  the  adoption  of 
the  Report  of  the  aforesaid  committee  of  Nine,  by  the  General 
Conference,  (and  the  more  for  the  unanimity  with  which  it  was 
adopted)  as  involving  the  most  solemn  pledge  which  could 
have  been  given  by  the  majority  to  the  minority  and  the 
Churches  represented  by  them,  for  the  full  and  faithful  execu- 
tion of  all  the  particulars  specified  and  intended  in  that 
Report. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  M^e  approve  of  the  recommendation  of 
the  Southern  delegates,  to  hold  a  convention  in  Louisville, 
on  the  1st  day  of  May  next,  and  will  elect  delegates  to  the 
same  on  the  ratio  recommended  in  the  address  of  the  delegates 
to  their  constituents. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  we  earnestly  request  the  Bishops,  one 
and  all,  to  attend  the  said  convention. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  while  we  do  not  consider  the  proposed 
convention  competent  to  make  any  change  or  changes  in  the 
rules  of  discipline,  they  may  nevertheless  indicate  what 
changes,  if  any,  are  deemed  necessary  under  a  separate  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Southern  and  South-western  (.'onferences. 
And  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  convention  to  resolve  on,  and 
provide  for,  a  separate  organization  of  these  Conferences 
under  a  General  Conference  to  be  constituted  and  empowered 
in  all  respects  /or  the  p^ovcrnment  of  these  Conferences,  as  the 
General  Conference  hitherto  has  been  with  respect  to  all  the 
Annual  Conferences— according  to  the  provisions  and  inten- 
tion of  the  late  General  Conference. 

"  6.  Resolved,  That  as,  in  common  with  all  our  brethren  of 
this  Conference  district,  we  have  deeply  sympathized  with 
Bishop  Andrew  in  his  atilictions,  and  believe  him  to  have  been 
blameless  in  the  matter  for  which  he  has  sufl'ered,  so,  with 
them,  we  affectionately  assure  him  of  our  approbation  of  his 
course,  and  receive  him  as  not  the  less  worthy,  or  less  to  be 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  147 

honored  in  his  Episcopal  character,  for  the  action  which  has 
been  had  in  his  case. 

"7.  Resolved,  That  we  recognize  in  the  wisdom  and  pru- 
dence, the  firmness  and  discretion,  exhibited  in  the  com-se  of 
Bishop  Soule,  during  the  General  Conference— as  well  as  in 
former  instances  wherein  he  has  proved  his  devotion  to  the 
great  principles  of  constitutional  i-ight  in  our  Church, — noth- 
ing more  than  was  to  be  expected  from  the  bosom  friend  of 
Asbury  and  McKendree. 

"  8.  Resolved,  That  in  common  wdth  the  whole  body  of  our 
people,  we  approve  of  the  conduct  of  our  delegates,  both 
during  the  General  Conference,  and  subsequently. 

"  9.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the 
late  General  Conference  for  the  change  of  the  Sixth  Artich; 
of  the  Restrictive  Rules  in  the  book  of  Discipline,  so  as  to 
allow  an  equitable  pro-rata  division  of  the  Book  Concern. 

"  W.  Capers,  ") 

"  W.  Saiith, 

"  H.  Bass, 

"  N.  Talley, 

"H.  A.  C.  Walker,  yConnnittcc.''' 

"CBetts, 

"S.  W.  Capers, 

"  S.  DuNWOODY, 

''  R.  J.  Boyd.  J 

The  Indian  Mission  Conference  adopted  the  following  reso- 
lutions relative  to  division: — 

report  of  the  committee  on  separation. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  action  of  the 
late  General  Conference  relating  to  an  amicable  division  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  beg 
leave  to  report  the  following  resolutions  for  adoption  by  the 
Conference: 

"1.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  proposed  alteration 
of  the  sixth  Restrictive  Article  of  the  Discipline. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  pursued  by  the 
minority  of  the  late  General  Conference. 

"'3.  Resolved,  That  we  elect  delegates  to  represent  t\w. 
Indian  Mission  Conference  in  the  contemplated  convention  to 
be  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May  next. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  do  deeph'  deplore  the  ne- 
cessity for  division  of  any  kind  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church;  and  that  we  will  not  cease  to  send  up  our  prayers  to 
Almighty  God  for  his  gracious  interposition,  and  that  he  may 
guide  the  aflairs  of  the  Church  to  a  ha])py  issue. 

"J.  (J.  Berryman,  ClCn. 


148  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

"  The  above  report  having  been  read,  was  taken  up  section 
by  section,  and  disposed  of  as  follows:  The  first  resolution  M^as 
adopted,  ayes  14;  nays  1.  The  second  resolution  was  adopted, 
ayes  11;  nays  3;  declined  voting,  4.  The  third  resolution  was 
adopted,  ayes  17.  The  fourth  resolution  was  adopted,  ayes 
17.  The  preamble  and  resolutions  were  then  adopted  by  the 
Conference  as  a  whole. 

'•  The  Conference  then  proceeded,  in  accordance  with  the 
third  resolution,  to  elect  delegates  to  attend  the  proposed  con- 
vention in  Louisville,  in  May  next.  On  counting  the  votes,  it 
appeared  that  the  whole  number  of  votes  given  was  twenty- 
one,  of  which  number  William  H.  Goode  had  received  twenty, 
Edward  T.  Peery  eighteen,  scattering  four.  Whereupon,  W. 
H.  Goode  and  E.  T.  Peery  having  received  a  majority  of  all 
the  votes  given,  were  declared  duly  elected.  D.  B.  Gumming 
was  then  elected  reserve  delegate. 

"  The  following  resolutions  were  on  the  next  day  unaimously 
adopted  at  the  request  of  the  delegates  elect. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  condition  of  the  Church  at 
the  present  trying  crisis,  the  members  of  this  Conference  will, 
when  practicable,  as  near  as  may  be,  at  the  hour  of  twilight, 
in  the  evening  of  each  day,  until  the  close  of  the  approaching 
convention  at  Louisville,  meet  each  other  at  a  throne  of  grace, 
and  devoutly  implore  the  blessing  of  God  upon  our  assembled 
delegates  in  the  discharge  of  their  important  duties. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Friday  preceding  the  opening  of  said 
convention,  be  set  apart  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  supplication 
to  Almighty  God  for  the  continued  unity,  peace,  and  prosperity 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  and  that  our  members 
throughout  this  Conference  be  requested  to  join  us  in  the  de- 
votions of  that  day.  "  Wm.  H.  Goode, 

"E.T.  Peery." 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted  by  the  Georgia  Conference: — 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  DIVISION. 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the 
difficulties  of  the  Church  as  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  to 
submit  some  recommendations  to  the  Annual  Conference  for 
their  adoption,  beg  leave  to  report: — 

"  The  action  of  the  majority  in  the  last  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  cases  of  Bishop 
Andrew  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harding,  has  rendered  it  indispensable 
that  the  Conferences,  within  whose  limits  slavery  exists,  should 
cease  to  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  that  body.  They  must 
either  abandon  the  people  collected  under  their  ministry,  and 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  149 

committed  to  their  pastoral  care,  and  the  vast  and  widening 
field  of  missionary  labor  among  the  slaves — a  field  to  which 
their  attention  is  imperatively  called  by  their  sympathies  as 
Christians,  their  sense  of  ministerial  obligation  as  preachers 
of  the  gospel,  and  their  interests  and  duties  as  citizens — or 
they  must  live  under  the  control  of  an  ecclesiastical  body, 
separate  and  distinct  from,  and  independent  of  the  Conferences 
lying  within  the  States  and  Territories  where  slavery  is  not 
allowed  by  law.  In  view  of  the  relations  before  stated,  that 
distinct  organization  is  required  by  a  necessity  strict  and  abso- 
lute, and  upon  that  issue  we  place  it,  before  the  Church  and 
the  world.  The  exigence  which  brings  it  upon  us,  arose  not 
out  of  our  acts,  or  designs;  no  collateral  considerations  of  ex- 
pedience abated  our  zeal  in  withstanding  it;  no  collateral 
issues  upon  points  involved,  aft'ected  our  determination  to 
maintain  the  unity  of  the  Church  under  one  organization  as 
heretofore  existing;  no  pride  of  opinion,  speculative  difi'er- 
cnces,  nor  personal  motives  have  conducted  us  to  this  conclu- 
sion. We  did  not  seek  to  effect  any  changes  in  the  doctrine 
or  Discipline  of  our  Church;  we  did  not  ask  any  boon  at 
the  hands  of  the  General  Conference,  nor  any  exemption 
from  the  operation  of  the  law^s  which  were  common  to  the 
M'hole  connection;  and  whatever  consequences  afl^ecting  the 
Church,  or  the  civil  community,  may  result  from  our  move- 
ment, we  confidently  look  for  acquittal  to  the  judgment  of 
posterity,  and  the  decision  of  the  sober  and  unprejudiced 
among  our  cotemporaries.  The  General  Conference  violated 
the  law  of  the  Church,  first,  by  confirming  the  decision  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  suspending  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harding  from 
his  connection  with  that  Conference  as  a  traveling  preacher 
therein,  because  he  would  not  give  freedom  to  slaves,  which 
by  the  laws  of  the  land  he  could  not  manumit;  and  secondly, 
by  passing  a  resolution  intended  to  inhibit  Bishop  Andrew 
from  the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  functions  for  the  sam.e  rea- 
sons; in  both  cases  contrary  to  the  express  provisions  of  the 
Discipline,  which  allow  preachers  to  hold  slaves  M^herever 
they  are  not  permitted  by  the  laws  of  the  land  to  enjoy  free- 
dom when  manumitted,  and  in  both  cases  striking  an  effective 
blow  at  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  economy  of  Meth- 
odism, as  it  destroys  that  general  itinerancy  of  the  preachers 
which  is  its  most  distinguished  peculiarity;  for  under  their 
decision,  preachers  holding  slaves  in  Conferences,  where  by  the 
law  of  the  Discipline  they  are  allowed  so  to  do,  may  not  be 
transferred  to  Conferences,  whithin  Avhose  limits  slavery  does 
not  exist.  By  the  same  decision,  both  preachers  and  lay 
members  holding  slaves,  are  thrown  into  an  odious  and  dis- 
honored caste,  the  first  deprived  of  office  therefor,  and  the  re- 

13* 


150  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

ligious  character  of  both  impeached,  and  thrown  under  suspi- 
cion thereby;  to  which  must  be  added,  as  an  evil  not  Hghtly 
to  be  regarded,  nor  shghtly  overlooked,  that  in  connection 
with  the  fanatical  movements  of  abolitionists  in  the  North, 
East,  and  West,  it  is  well  fitted  to  excite  slaves  to  disaffection 
and  rebellion,  making  it  imperative  upon  governments  and 
citizens  to  prohibit  all  communication  between  slaves  and 
preachers,  who  either  teach  such  doctrine,  or  impliedly  admit 
it  to  be  true  by  submitting  to  such  dishonor  and  deprivation. 
Secondl}'.  That  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  the  General 
Conference  have  violated  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  and 
invaded  personal  rights,  "which  are  secured  by  the  laws  of 
every  enlightened  nation,  if  not  by  the  usages  of  every  savage 
people  on  earth.  They  tried,  and  sentenced  Bishop  Andrew 
without  charges  preferred,  or  a  cognizal  offence  stated.  If  it 
is  even  admitted  that  they  intended  to  charge  him  with  'im- 
proper conduct,'  as  a  phrase  used  in  the  Discipline  to  embrace 
every  class  of  offences  for  which  a  Bishop  is  amenable  to  the 
(General  Conference,  and  on  conviction  liable  to  be  expelled, 
they  did  not  formally  prefer  that  charge;  if  they  intended  to 
specify  his  '  connection  with  slavery,'  as  the  substantive  offence 
under  that  charge,  a  'connection  v^dth  slavery'  is  not  a  cogni- 
zable ofl^ence,  under  any  law  of  our  Church,  written  or  un- 
written, statutory  or  prescriptive,  and  the  only  'connection 
with  slavery'  attempted  to  be  established  in  his  case,  is  ex- 
pressly permitted  by  the  Discipline  in  section  10th,  part  2nd, 
on  slavery.  If  they  claimed  the  right  to  declare  in  their  le- 
gislative capacity,  that  '  such  a  connection  with  slavery'  was 
an  off^ence  in  a  Bishop,  they  could  only  extend  it  to  him  rctro- 
activcly  by  cxpost  facto  enactment,  and  even  then  it  was  never  pro- 
mulgated until  the  very  moment  in  which  they  pronounced  his 
sentence  by  a  majority  vote.  But  we  cannot  admit  that  the 
framers  of  our  Discipline  ever  intended  to  subject  a  Bishop  to 
the  monstrous  injustice  of  being  liable  to  be  expelled  by  the 
General  Conference,  exercising  original  jurisdiction,  for  an 
impropriety  short  of  immorality,  or  official  delinquency,  whilst 
they  so  cautiously  secured  his  official  and  personal  rights  in 
all  cases  Mdierethat  body  has  appellate  cognizance  of  charges 
for  positive  immoralities;  and  we  are  confident  that  a  fair 
and  rational  construction  of  the  4th  and  5th  questions  and 
their  answers  in  the  4th  section  of  the  1st  chapter  of  the 
Discipline,  will  make  '  improper  conduct,'  in  the  answer  to  the 
4th  question,  and  'immorahty,'  in  the  5th,  descriptive  of  the 
same  class  of  offences  in  the  mind  of  the  law-maker,  who 
could  never  have  intended  to  subject  that  venerable  officer  to 
expulsion,  for  offiences  so  light,  that  they  could  not  be  con- 
sidered either  immoralities  or   official  dehnquencies,   and  so 


MBTHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  151 

entirely  dependent  for  their  very  existence  upon  the  caprice 
or  varying  notions  of  every  General  Conference,  that  they 
could  not  either  be  classified  or  designated. 

"  The  foregoing  views  we  consider  the  embodyment  of 
public  opinion  throughout  our  Conference.  The  sentiments 
of  our  people  in  primary  meetings,  in  quarterly  conferences, 
as  expressed  in  the  most  solemn  forms,  sustain  the  course  of 
our  delegation  in  the  General  Conference,  and  approve  and 
even  demand  an  organization  which  shall  transfer  the  slave- 
holding  Conferences  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  North.  The 
unanimity  of  the  people  we  verily  believe  to  be  without  a 
parallel  in  the  history  of  Church  action,  and  therefore  feel  our- 
selves perfectly  justified  in  recommending  to  yom-  body  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions,  viz: — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  we  will  elect  delegates  to  the  Conven- 
tion to  be  held  in  Louisville,  in  Kentucky,  on  the  1st  of  May 
next,  upon  the  basis  of  representation  proposed  and  acted  on 
by  the  other  Conferences;  viz,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven 
members  of  our  Conference. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be  instructed  to  co-operate 
with  the  delegates  from  the  other  Southern  and  South-west- 
ern Conferences,  who  shall  be  represented  in  the  Convention, 
in  efiecting  the  organization  of  a  General  Conference,  which 
shall  embrace  those  Annual  Conferences,  and  in  making  all 
necessary  arrangements  for  its  going  into  operation,  as  soon 
as  the  acts  of  the  said  Convention  shall  have  been  reported 
by  the  several  delegations  to  their  constituents,  and  accepted 
by  them,  according  to  such  arrangements  as  may  be  made  by 
the  Convention  for  carrying  the  same  into  effect. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be  instructed  to  use  all 
prudent  precautions  to  secure  that  portion  of  the  Book  Concern 
and  Chartered  Fund,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to 
which  the  Annual  Conferences  represented  in  the  convention, 
shall  be  unitedly  entitled,  and  all  the  property  to  which  the  seve- 
ral Annual  Conferences  are  entitled,  to  them  severally,  and  that 
to  this  end,  they  be  requested  to  obtain  the  written  opinions  of 
one  or  more  eminent  Lawyers;  but  that  in  the  event  they  must 
either  abandon  the  property,  or  remain  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  tlie  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
constituted  as  it  now  is,  they  be  left  to  the  exercise  of  a  sound 
discretion  in  the  premises. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  make  a  report  to  this  body 
at  its  next  session,  of  all  their  acts  and  doings  in  the  aforesaid 
Convention,  and  this  body  shall  not  be  bound  by  any  arrange- 
ments therein  made,  until  after  it  shall  have  accepted  and 
approved  them  in  Conference  assembled. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be,  and  they  are  hereby 


152  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

instructed  not  to  agree  to  any  alterations  in  the  Discipline  of 
tlie  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  the  Discipline  adopted 
under  the  new  organization,  shall  be  that  known  and  recog- 
nized as  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States,  with  such  modifications  only  as  are  neces- 
sary formally  to  adapt  it  to  the  new  organization. 

"  6.  Resolved,  That  w^e  consider  ourselves  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
and  that  we  have  done  no  act,  nor  do  we  authorize  any  act 
to  be  done  in  our  name,  by  which  our  title  to  be  so  considered 
shall  be  forfeited,  unless  in  the  event  contemplated  in  the  last 
clause  of  the  third  Resolution  it  becomes  necessary  so  to  do. 

"  7.  Resolved,  That  we  highly  appreciate  the  devotion  of  our 
venerable  senior  Bishop  to  the  constitution  and  discipline  of 
the  Church,  and  his  uncompromising  firmness  in  maintaining 
both  the  one  and  the  other,  and  hereby  assure  him  of  om^  in- 
creased confidence  and  affection. 

"  8.  Resolved,  That  our  beloved  Bishop  Andrew  has  en- 
deared himself  to  the  preachers  and  people  of  the  Southern 
Church,  by  resisting  the  constitutional  dictation  of  the  majority 
of  the  late  General  Conference,  and  that  we  cordially  approve 
his  whole  action  in  the  case  and  welcome  him  to  the  unre- 
stricted exercise  of  his  episcopal  functions  among  us. 

"9.  Resolved,  That  the  course  of  our  delegates  in  the  trying 
circumstances  by  which  they  were  surrounded  during  the  last 
session  of  the  General  Conference,  meets  our  entire  approbation. 

"10.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  alteration  of  the  sixth 
Restrictive  Rule,  as  recommended  by  the  Resolution  of  the 
General  Conference. 

"11.  Resolved,  That  we  do  not  concur  with  the  Holston 
Conference  in  the  resolution  proposed  by  them,  regarding  it 
a.s  tending  only  to  embarrass  the  action  of  the  convention, 
■\idthout  the  slightest  promise  of  good  to  either  division  of  the 
Church.  "  L.  Pierce, 

"  Thomas  Samford, 
"  Ignatius  A.  Few, 
"  Samuel  Anthony, 
"  Isaac  Boring, 
"  Geo.  F.  Pierce, 
"JoanW.  T alley, 
"W.  D.  Matthews, 
"J.  B.  Payne, 
"  JosiAH  Lewis. 

"  It  was  further  resolved,  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  be  requested  to  attend  the  convention  of 
Southern  delegates  to  be  held  at  Louisville  in  May  next." 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  153 

The  followdng  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Nine  was  unani- 
mously adopted  by  the  Florida  Conference: — 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  SEPARATION. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  "was  referred  the  subject  of  the 
action  of  the  late  General  Conference  in  the  cases  of  Bishop 
Andrew  and  F.  A.  Harding;  also  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Nine  in  the  late  General  Conference  on  the  subject  of  a 
peaceable  separation  of  the  Church;  also  the  resolution  of  the 
Holston  Conference  on  the  same  subject,  submit  the  following 
resolutions,  to  wit: — 

"  1 .  Resolved,  That  we  disapprove  of  the  course  of  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  F.A.Harding. 

"2.  That  we  heartily  approve  the  proposed  plan  of  sepa- 
ration as  adopted  by  the  C^eneral  Conference,  under  which  the 
Southern  and  South-western  Conferences  are  authorized  to 
unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion. 

"3.  That  we  are  satisfied  that  the  peace  and  success  of  the 
Church  in  the  South  demand  a  separate  and  distinct  organi- 
zation. 

"  4.  That  we  commend  and  admire  the  firm  and  manly 
course  pursued  by  Bishop  Andrew  under  the  trials  he  has  had 
to  encounter,  and  that  we  still  regard  him  as  possessing  all 
his  Episcopal  functions, 

"  5.  That  the  course  pursued  by  our  venerable  senior  super- 
intendent. Bishop  Soule,  in  defending  the  Disciphne  of  our 
Church,  has  served  but  to  endear  him  to  us  more  and  more, 
and  we  heartily  approve  his  course  in  inviting  Bishop  Andrew 
to  assist  him  in  his  Episcopal  visitations. 

"  6.  That  we  tender  our  warmest  thanks  to  all  those  breth- 
ren who  voted  in  the  minority  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case. 

"  7.  That  we  approve  of  the  proposed  convention  to  be 
held  in  Louisville  the  first  of  May  next,  and  will  proceed  to 
elect  delegates  to  said  convention. 

"  8.  That  we  do  not  concur  in  the  resolutions  of  the  Holston 
Conference,  proposing  the  election  of  Delegates  for  forming  a 
plan  of  compromise. 

"9.  That  we  do  conciu*  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference  for  the  change  of  the  sixth  article  in  the  restric- 
tive rules  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  allowing  an  equitable  pro 
rata  division  of  the  Book  Concern.  "  P.  P.  Smith, 

"T.  C.  Benning, 
"R.  H.  Luckey, 
"J.  W.  Yarbrough, 

"R.   H.HOWREN, 

"  W.  W.  Griffin, 
"  A.  Peeler, 
"  A.  Martin, 
"S.  P.  Richardson." 


154  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

The  Texas  Conference  adopted  the  following  report  and 
resolutions,  presented  by  the  Committee  on  Separation: — 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  SEPARATION. 

"The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  certain  acts  of  the 
late  General  Conference,  causing  and  providing  for  a  division 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  the  General  Conference 
thereof,  and  sundry  communications  pertaining  thereto,  have 
had  the  same  under  solemn  and  prayerful  consideration,  and 
beg  leave  to  present  the  following  report: — 

"  In  view  of  the  numerous  expositions  and  arguments,  ym 
and  co/i,  with  which  the  Christian  Advocates  have  teemed  for 
some  months,  on  the  merits  of  the  highly  important  subject 
upon  which  your  committee  have  been  called  to  act,  they 
presume  that  the  Conference  is  too  well  enlightened  to  need 
an  elaborate  and  argumentative  investigation  of  them,  in  their 
multifarious  relations  and  bearings;  they  therefore  respectfully 
present  the  following  resolutions,  as  the  result  of  their  delib- 
erations:— 

"  Resolved,  1.  That  we  approve  of  the  course  of  the  Southern 
and  South-western  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference; 
and  that  their  independent  and  faithful  discharge  of  duty,  in  a 
trying  crisis,  commands  our  admiration  and  merits  our  thanks. 

"  2.  That  we  deeply  deplore  the  increasingly  fearful  contro- 
versy between  the  Northern  and  Southern  divisions  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  the  institution  of  domestic 
slavery,  and  that  we  will  not  cease  to  pray  most  fervently  to 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church  for  his  gracious  interposition  in 
guiding  this  controversy  to  a  happy  issue. 

"3.  That  we  approve  the  appointment  of  a  convention  of 
delegates  from  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in 
the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first  of  May  next,  by  the  Southern 
and  South-western  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference; 
and  also  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said  delegates, 
to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  the  Conference, 
and  tliat  we  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  convention 
upon  said  basis,  to  act  under  the  following  instructions,  to  wit: 
To  endeavor  to  secure  a  compromise  between  the  North  and 
South — to  oppose  a  formal  division  of  the  Church  before  the 
General  Conference  of  1848,  or  a  general  convention  can  be 
convened  to  decide  the  present  controversy.  But  should  a  di- 
vision be  deemed  unavoidable,  and  be  determined  on  by  the 
convention,  then,  being  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church,  as  it  is,  Ave  instruct  our  delegates  not  to  support  or 
favor  any  change  in  said  Discipline,  by  said  convention,  other 
than  to  adapt  its  fiscal  economy  to  tlie  Southern  organization. 

"•4.  That  we  approve  of  the  dignified  and  prudent  course  of  the 
bench  of  Bishops,  who  presided  in  the  late  General  Conference. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  155 

"5.  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Conference,  that  the  Rev. 
John  Clarke,  one  of  our  delegates  to  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, entirely  misrepresented  our  views  and  sentiments  in  his 
votes,  in  the  cases  of  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew. 
"  6.  That  we  appoint  the  Friday  immediately  preceding-  the 
meeting  of  the  proposed  general  convention  of  the  delegates 
of  the  Southern  and  South-western  Otonferences,  as  a  day 
of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  on 
said  convention — that  it  may  be  favored  with  the  healthful 
influence  of  his  grace,  and  the  guidance  of  his  wisdom. 

"  Chauncey  Richardson, 
"  Robert  Alexander, 
"Samuel  A.  Williams." 

The  Alabama  Conference  adopted  the  following  preamble 
and  resolutions  in  relation  to  separation: — 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  DIVISION. 

"  The  committee  appointed  by  the  Conference  to  take  into 
consideration  the  subject  of  a  separate  jurisdiction  for  the 
Southern  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  beg 
leave  to  report,  That  they  have  meditated  with  prayerful  so- 
licitude on  this  important  matter,  and  have  solemnly  concluded 
on  the  necessity  of  the  measure.  They  suppose  it  to  be 
superfluous  to  review  formally  all  the  proceedings  which  con- 
stitute the  unhappy  controversy  between  the  Northern  and 
Southern  portions  of  our  Church,  inasmuch  as  their  sentiments 
can  be  expressed  in  one  sentence, — They  endorse  the  unan- 
answerable  Protest  of  the  Minority  in  the  late  General  Con- 
ference. They  believe  that  the  doctrines  of  that  imperishable 
document  cannot  be  successfully  assailed.  They  are  lirm  in 
the  conviction  that  the  action  of  the  majority  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew  was  unconstitutional.  Being  but  a  delegated 
body,  the  C^eneral  Conference  has  no  legitimate  right  to  tamper 
wdth  the  office  of  a  General  Superintendent — his  amenableness 
to  that  body  and  liability  to  expulsion  by  it,  having  exclusive 
reference  to  mal-administration,  ceasing  to  travel,  and  immoral 
conduct.  They  are  of  opinion  that  Bishop  Andrew's  con- 
nection with  slavery  can  come  under  none  of  these  heads. — 
If  the  entire  eldership  of  the  Church,  in  a  conventional  ca- 
pacity, were  to  constitute  non-slaveholding  or  even  abolition- 
ism a  tenure  by  wdiich  the  Episcopal  olhcc  should  be  lield,  or 
if  they  %vere  to  abolish  the  oihce,  they  doubtless  could  plead 
the  abstract  right  thus  to  modify  or  revolutionize  the  Church 
in  its  supreme  executive  administration.  But  before  the 
General  Conference  can  justly  plead  this  right,  it  must  show 
when  and  where  such  plenary  power  was  delegated  to  it  by 
the  onJt^  fountain  of  authoriti/,  the  entire  Pastorate  of  tJte  CViiwcli. 


156  HISTORY   OF  THE   OBGANIZATION   OF  THE 

Your  committee  are  therefore  of  opinion,  that  the  General 
Conference  has  no  more  power  over  a  Bishop,  except  in  the 
specified  cases  of  maladministration,  ceasing  to  travel,  and 
immorality,  than  over  the  Episcopacy,  as  an  integral  part  of 
our  ecclesiastical  polity.  It  can  no  more  depose  a  Bishop  for 
slaveholding  than  it  can  create  a  new  Church, 

"  Your  committee  deeply  regret  that  these  '  conservative' 
sentiments  did  not  occur  to  the  majority  in  the  late  General 
Conference,  and  that  the  apologists  of  that  body,  since  its 
session,  have  given  them  no  place  in  their  ecclesiastical  creed, 
but  on  the  contrary  have  given  fearful  evidence  that  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  are  but  the  incipiency 
of  a  course,  which  w^hen  finished,  will  leave  not  a  solitary 
slaveholder  in  the  communion  which  shall  be  unfortuntely 
under  their  control.  The  foregoing  sentiments  and  opinions 
embody  the  general  views  expressed  most  unequivocally 
throughout  the  Conference  district  since  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, by  the  large  body  of  the  membership,  both  in  primary 
meetings  and  quarterly  conferences. 

"The  committee,  therefore,  ofler  to  the  calm  consideration 
and  mature  action  of  the  Alabama  Annual  Conference,  the 
following  series  of  resolutions: — 

"1.  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  deeply  deplores  the 
action  of  the  late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  case  of  our  venerable  Superintendent, 
Bishop  Andrew,  believing  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  being  as 
totally  destitute  of  warrant  from  the  Discipline  as  from  the 
Word  of  God. 

"2.  That  the  almost  unanimous  agreement  of  Northern 
Methodists  wdth  the  majority,  and  Southern  Methodists  with 
the  minority  of  the  late  General  Conference,  shows  the  wis- 
dom of  that  body  in  suggesting  a  duality  of  jurisdiction  to 
meet  the  present  emergency. 

"3.  That  this  Conference  agrees  to  the  proposition  for  the 
alteration  of  the  sixth  Restrictive  Rule  of  the  Discipline. 

"  4.  That  this  Conference  approves  of  the  projected  con- 
vention at  Louisville  in  May  next. 

"  5,  That  this  Conference  most  respectfully  invites  all  the 
Bishops  to  attend  the  proposed  convention  at  Louisville. 

"  6.  That  this  Conference  is  decided  in  its  attachment  to 
Methodism  as  it  exists  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  hopes 
tliat  the  Louisville  Convention  will  not  make  the  slightest 
alteration,  except  so  far  as  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  formation  of  a  separate  jurisdiction. 

"7.  That  every  preacher  of  this  Conference  shall  take  up  a 
collection  in  his  station  or  circuit,  as  soon  as  practicable,  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  the  delegates  to  the  Convention,  and 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  157 

the  proceeds  of  such  collection  shall  he  immediately  paid  over 
to  the  nearest  delegate  or  Presiding  Elder;  and  the  excess,  or 
deficit  of  the  collection  for  the  said  expenses  shall  be  reported 
to  the  next  Conference,  which  shall  take  action  on  the  same. 

"  8.  That  the  Piiday  immediately  preceding  the  session  of 
the  convention,  shall  be  observed  in  all  om*  circuits  and  stations, 
as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  blessings  of  God  upon 
its  deliberations. 

"  9.  That  whilst  this  Conference  full}^  appreciates  the  com- 
mendable motives  which  induced  the  Holston  Conference  to 
suggest  another  expedient  to  compromise  the  difierences  exist- 
ing between  the  Northern  and  Southern  divisions  of  the  Church, 
it  nevertheless  cannot  concur  in  the  proposition  of  that  Con- 
ference concerning  that  matter. 

"10.  That  this  Conference  fully  recognizes  the  right  of  our 
excellent  superintendent.  Bishop  Soule,to  invite  Bishop  Andrew 
to  share  with  him  the  responsibilities  of  the  episcopal  office, 
and  while  the  Conference  regrets  the  absence  of  the  former^  it 
rejoices  in  being  favored  with  the  efficient  services  of  the  latter 
— it  respectfully  tenders  these  '  true  3^okefellows'  in  the  super- 
intendency  the  fullest  approbation,  the  most  fervent  prayers, 
and  the  most  cordial  sympathies.  "Thos.  O.  Summers, 

"A.  H.  Mitchell, 
"E.  V.  Levert, 
"J.  Hamilton, 
"E.  Hearn, 

"  W.   MURRAH, 
"  J.   BoRhNG, 

"  Geo.  Shaeffer, 
"  C.  McLeod." 

vSuch  was  the  action  of  the  diffijrent  Annual  Conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  with  regard  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
General  Conference,  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  From  these 
it  will  be  perceived  that  great  unanimity  prevailed  in  disap- 
proving the  proscription  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  in  the  opinion 
that  the  General  Conference  action  had  imposed  on  the  South 
the  necessity  of  falling  upon  the  plan  of  separation  as  a  mea- 
sure of  peace  and  self-defence.  It  is  from  these  official  pro- 
ceedings that  the  real  opinions  and  temper  of  the  South  are 
to  be  gathered,  and  not  from  some  unguarded  expression,  or 
ebullition  of  transient  feeling,  on  the  part  ol'  individuals.  If 
this  latter  rule  were  to  govern  the  case,  the  North  would  fall 
under  hea\y  condemnation,  at  least  equally  with  the  South; 
for  there  the  truth  and  honor  of  the  whole  Southern  ministry 
have  been  impeached,  and  the  utmost  uncharitableness  been 
manifested  in  the  language  of  those  appointed  to  speak  the 

14 


158  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THK 

sentiments  of  that  portion  of  the  Church.  In  the  official  action 
of  the  Southern  Conferences  a  commendable  moderation 
generally  prevails,  and  even  in  those  in  the  extreme  South  we 
find  them  seeking  motives  the  most  charitable  to  which  the 
action  of  their  Northern  brethren  might  be  ascribed. 

But  we  must  now  go  back  and  briefly  notice  another  branch 
of  this  history. 

We  have  seen  in  the  former  part  of  this  work,  that  Mobile 
the  General  Conference  declared  it  their  "sense"  that  Bishop 
Andrew  should  cease  to  exercise  Episcopal  functions,  while 
encumbered  with  slavery,  they  declared  him  still  a  Bishop  of 
the  Church, — that  he  should  be  so  published  in  the  Discipline, 
Hymn  Book,  &c.,  and  should  be  so  supported;  but  that  his 
taking  or  not  taking  Episcopal  labor,  should  depend  on  his 
own  decision  with  reference  to  the  previous  action  of  that 
body.  In  this  state  of  things  the  plan  of  Episcopal  visitation 
was  made  out  for  the  succeeding  four  years,  and  published, 
without  embracing  the  name  of  Bishop  Andrew, — he  having 
left  the  seat  of  the  Conference  before  its  final  adjournment. 

The  fact  was  this,  the  board  of  Bishops  agreed  that  Bishop 
Andrew  should  be  taken  into  the  plan  of  Episcopal  visitation, 
provided  he  should  apply  for  work,  and  to  meet  that  contin- 
gency they  prepared  a  second  plan  of  visitation  including 
Bishop  Andrew,  which  plan  was  to  be  published  in  place  of 
the  first,  in  case  he  made  such  application.  This  reserved  plan 
was  committed  to  the  hands  of  Bishop  Soule,  to  be  published 
if  Bishop  Andrew  should  make  application,  in  writing,  for 
Episcopal  work.  But  of  all  this  arrangement  Bishop  Andrew 
had  no  notice  whatever,  except  in  vague  rumor.  In  this  con- 
dition matters  remained  for  some  months.  For  a  time  the 
general  current  of  opinion  among  the  Bishop's  friends  seemed 
to  be  against  his  performing  any  Episcopal  labor;  for  it  was 
more  than  intimated  that  if  he  did  so,  he  would  be  impeached  for 
a  violation  of  the  expressed  will  or  "  sense"  of  the  General 
Conference.  When,  however,  it  appeared  to  be  settled  that 
the  Bishop  would  not  take  work,  there  were  not  wanting  among 
those  who  favored  his  suspension,  men  who  urged  the  propriety 
and  even  duty  of  his  performing  Episcopal  labor.  The  mea- 
sure was  urged  in  one  or  more  of  the  Northern  Church  papers, 
and  in  a  more  priva.te  way,  it  was  said  that  as  the  Bishop  was 
supported  by  the  Church,  he  had  no  right  to  withhold  his  labors, 
and  it  was  strongly  suggested  that  such  neglect  of  official  duty 
might  very  properly  constitute  just  ground  of  impeachment. 

At  this  crisis,  Bishop  Andrew  received  a  letter  from  Bishop 
Soule,  inviting  him  into  the  field.  The  letter  and  response  are 
given  below,  and  they  sufficiently  explain  themselves.  This 
was  the  first  authentic  information  Bishop  Andrew  received  of 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  150 

the  arrangement   entered  into  by  the  Bishops  at  the  close  of 
the  Cieneral  Conlerence. 

"  Charleston,  S.  C,  Nov.  4,  1844. 
"  Mv  Dear  Brother, — I  perceiv^e  from  the  resolutions  passed 
at  the  various  Church  meetino:s  in  the  South,  that  there  is  a 
very  general  expression  of  opinion  in  favor  of  my  taking  my 
appropriate  share  of  Episcopal  labor;  and  as  I  have  received, 
both  from  public  meetings  and  individual  correspondents,  from 
ministers  and  laymen,  the  most  earnest  and  aliectionate  invi- 
tations to  attend  the  sessions  of  most  of  the  Southern  and 
South-western  Conferences,  I  deem  it  due  to  all  concerned  to 
state  definitely  the  course  I  have  pursued,  and  had  resolvetl 
to  pursue,  till  the  meeting  of  the  convention  at  Louisville, 
Kentucky.  Immediately  after  the  passing  of  the  memorable 
resolution  in  my  case  in  the  late  General  Conference,  I  left 
the  city  of  New  York  and  spent  the  next  day,  which  was  the 
Sabbath,  at  Newark,  Ne^v  .lersey,  to  fultill  an  engagement  pre- 
viously made;  after  which  I  returned  to  the  bosom  of  my 
family  in  Georgia.  From  Newark  I  addressed  a  letter  to 
Bishop  Soule,  assigning  the  reasons  for  my  departure,  and 
stating  in  substance  to  the  following  effect,  viz.:  That  I  did 
not  know  "svhether  the  Bishops  would  feel  authorized,  in  view 
of  the  recent  action  of  the  General  Conference,  to  assign  me 
a  place  among  them  for  the  next  four  years,  unless  that  body 
should  condescend  to  explain  its  action  m'fcre  definitely;  but 
that  if  the  Bishops  should  see  proper  to  assign  me  my  shnic 
in  the  Episcopal  visitations,  I  should  be  glad  that  they  would 
let  my  work  commence  as  late  in  the  season  as  convenient, 
inasmuch  as  I  had  been  absent  from  my  family  most  of  the 
time  for  the  last  twelve  months;  but  that  if  they  did  not  feel 
authorized,  in  view  of  the  actionof  the  General  Conference,  to 
give  me  work,  I  should  not  feel  hurt  Avith  them.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  there  was  subsequently  introduced  into  the 
Conference  a  resolution  intended  to  explain  the  meaning  of 
the  former  one  as  being  simply  advisury;  this  was  promptly 
laid  on  the  table,  which  left  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  the 
opinion  I  had  previously  formed,  that  the  General  Conferenci^ 
designed  the  action  as  mandatorij.  I  understand  that  thw 
Southern  delegates  afterwards  iiotified  the  Bishops  in  due 
form,  that  if  they  should  give  me  my  portion  of  the  Episcopnl 
work,  I  Avould  attend  to  it.  The  plan  of  Episcopal  visitation, 
however,  AA'as  drawn  up  and  subsequently  published  without 
my  name,  as  is  well  known.  I  have  heard  it  rumored,  indeed, 
that  this  plan  was  so  arranged  that  I  could  be  taken  into  it  at 
anytime  when  I  should  signify  a  wish  to  be  so  introduced;  and 
some  anonymous  correspondents  of  the  Western  and  South- 
western Christian  Advocates  have  expressed  themselves  in  a 


160  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

manner  which  indicated  some  surprise  that  I  had  not  availed 
myself  of  this  kind  provision  of  the  Episcopal  Board.  Now, 
in  reply  to  all  this  I  have  only  to  say,  that  I  presume  those 
gentlemen  are  mistaken  entirely  as  to  the  practicability  of  any 
such  arrangement;  for  if  the  Bishops  had  contemplated  the 
possibility  of  any  such  change  in  their  plan,  it  is  but  fair  to 
infer  that  either  they  would  have  appended  to  their  published 
arrangement  some  note  to  that  efi'ect,  or  else  that  they  would 
have  informed  me  of  it  by  letter;  and  forasmuch  as  they  have 
done  neither,  I  presume  that  the  aforementioned  rumor  is  alto- 
gether Mdthout  foundation.  However,  I  may  be  mistaken  in 
this  judgment,  as  I  know  nothing  of  the  plans  of  the  Bishops, 
other  than  what  is  published,  not  having  received  a  line  from 
one  of  tliem  since  the  General  Conference,  save  the  accompa- 
nying letter  from  Bishop  8oule.  In  view  of  all  these  facts,  I 
came  deliberately  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Bishops  thought 
it  most  prudent,  under  the  circumstances,  not  to  invite  me  to 
perform  any  oificial  action;  and  as  I  wished  to  be  the  cause 
of  no  unpleasant  feeling  to  the  Bishops  or  preachers,  I  deter- 
mined not  to  visit  any  of  the  Annual  Conferences  at  their 
respective  sessions.  At  the  urgent  solicitation,  however,  of 
many  of  the  preachers  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  I  so  far 
changed  my  determination  as  to  make  an  effort  to  reach  that 
Conference  about  the  last  day  or  two  of  the  session;  but  a 
very  unexpected  detention  on  the  road  prevented  the  accom- 
plishment of  my  purpose.  Further  reflection  brought  me 
back  to  my  original  purpose;  and  I  abstained  from  visiting 
Holston  and  Missouri.  On  the  important  questions  which  now 
agitate  us;  I  wished  the  Conferences  to  act  in  view  of  the 
great  facts  and  principles  involved,  apart  from  any  influence 
which  my  personal  presence  among  them  might  produce.  I 
had  laid  out  my  plan  of  M^ork  for  the  winter:  I  designed  to 
visit  diflerent  portions  of  the  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
and  publish  among  them,  as  I  was  able,  the  unsearchable 
riches  of  Christ.  The  following  communication  from  Bishop 
8oule  furnishes  me  a  suflicient  reason  to  change  my  arrange- 
ments, and  to  attend,  in  connection  with  him,  the  Conferences 
allotted  to  him  during  the  winter,  in  the  distribution  of 
Episcopal  labor. 

"  And  now  permit  me,  in  conclusion,  to  tender  to  my  breth- 
ren both  of  the  South  and  South-west,  my  most  cordial  and 
grateful  acknowledgments  for  their  kind  expressions  of  sym-  ■ 
pathy  for  me  in  the  storm  through  which  I  have  been  passing, 
and  to  invoke  their  most  fervent  and  continued  prayers  for  me 
and  mine,  and  especially  for  the  Church  of  God.  I  thank 
them  for  the  many  aflectionate  invitations  to  attend  their  Con- 
ferences, and  most  joyfully  would  I  have  been  with  them  but 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  lf)l 

for  the  reasons  indicated  above.     May  God  abundantly  bless 
us  and  guide  us  all  into  the  way  of  truth  and  peace. 

"James  O.  Andrew." 


"7T;  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Methodist 

Episcnjxd  Chwrch: 

"  Lebanon,  Ohio,  Sept.  26,  1844. 

"My  Dear  Bishop, — Since  the  close  of  the  recent  eventful 
session  of  the  General  Conference  I  have  been  watching,  with 
deep  solicitude,  the '  signs  of  the  times,'  and  tracing  causes,  as 
far  as  I  was  able,  to  their  ultimate  issues.  Some  generrd  results, 
gTowing  out  of  the  action  of  the  Conference,  it  required  no 
prophetic  vision  to  foresee.  To  prevent  the  measures  which, 
in  my  judgment,  would  lead  to  these  results  with  demonstra- 
tive certainty,  I  labored  day  and  night  with  prajers  and 
tears,  till  the  deed  was  done, — the  eventful  resolution  passed. 
From  that  perilous  hour  my  hands  hung  down,  discourage-' 
ment  filled  my  heart,  and  the  last  hope  of  the  uviti/  of  our  be- 
io^'ed  Zion  well  nigh  fled  from  mr//i  to  licaven.  My  last  effort 
to  avert  the  threatening  storm  appears  in  the  joint  recom- 
mendation of  all  the  Bishops  to  suspend  all  action  in  the  case 
until  the  ensuing  General  Conference.  At  the  presentation  of 
this  document  some  brethren  perceived  that  instead  of  Ii^j:ht 
the  darkness  around  them  was  increased  tenfold.  Others  irdl 
judrre,  have  judged  already.  And  tho;-e  who  come  after  us 
will  examine  the  history  of  our  acts.  The  document  was  rc- 
spectfiiUy  laid  upon  the  table,  probably  under  the  iniiucnce  of 
deep  regret  that  '  our  Bishops  should  enter  the  arena  of  con- 
ti-oversy  in  the  General  Conference.'  B^tt  it  cainiot, — docs  iwt 
sleep  there.  I  have  heard  many  excellent  ministers,  and  dis- 
tinguished laymen  in  our  own  communion,  not  in  the  slave 
States,  refer  to  it  as  a  measure  of  sound  Christian  policy,  and 
M'ith  deep  regret  that  the  Conference  had  not  adojitcd  it. 
Many  of  our  Northern  brethren  seem  now  deeply  to  deplore 
tlie  division  of  the  Church.  Oh!  that  there  had  hcen  fore- 
Uiought  as  well  as  c/fterthou^ht.  I  have  seen  various  plans  of 
compromise  for  the  adjustment  of  our  difficulties  and  pre- 
servation of  the  unity  of  the  Church.  The  most  prominent 
plan  provides  that  a  fundamental  article  in  the  treaty  shall  be. 
That  no  abolitionist  or  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  the 
office  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Alas 
for  us; — Where  are  our  men  of  wisdom,  of  experience?  Where 
are  our  fathers  and  brethren  who  have  analyzed  the  elements 
of  civil  or  ecclesiastical  compacts?  who  have  studied  man  in 
his  social  relations?  Who  are  the  '  liigh  contracting  parties,' 
and  will  they  create  a  caste  in  the  constitutional  eldership  in 
the  Church  of  Christ?     Will  this  tend  to  harmonize  and  con- 

14* 


162  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE  ' 

solidate  the  body?  Brethren  North  and  South  idll  know  that 
the  cause  must  be  removed  that  the  effect  may  cease.  That 
the  fountain  must  be  dried  up  before  the  stream  will  cease  to 
flow.  But  I  must  pause  on  this  subject.  The  time  has  not 
fully  arrived  for  me  to  define  my  position  in  regard  to  the 
causes  and  remedies  of  the  evils  which  now  agitate  and  dis- 
tract our  once  united  and  peaceful  body.  Still  I  trust  I  have 
given  such  proofs,  at  diflerent  times,  and  under  different  cir- 
cumstances, as  not  to  render  my  position  doubtful  in  the  judg- 
ment of  sober  discriminating  men,  either  North  or  South. — 
The  General  Conference  spake  in  the  language  of  wisdom  and 
sound  Christian  policy  when,  in  the  pastoral  address  of  1836, 
it  solemnly  and  affectionately  advised  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  to  abstain  from  all  agitation  of  the  exciting 
subject  of  slavery  and  its  abolition.  Nor  was  the  adoption  of 
the  Report  of  the  committee  on  the  memorial  of  our  brethren 
from  a  portion  of  Virginia,  within  the  bounds  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  less  distinguished  by  the  same  characteristics  of 
our  holy  Christianity,  and  the  sound  policy  of  our  Discipline  in 
providing  for  the  case. 

"  It  has  often  been  asked  through  the  public  Journals,  and 
otherwise,  'why  Bishop  Andrew  was  not  assigned  his  regular 
portion  of  the  Episcopal  work  for  the  four  ensuing  years,  on 
the  plan  of  visitation  formed  by  the  Bishops  and  published  in 
the  official  papers?'  It  devolves  on  the  majority  of  my  col- 
leagues in  the  Episcopacy,  (if  indeed  we  have  an  Episcopacy) 
rather  than  on  me,  to  answer  this  question.  Our  difference  of 
opinion  in  the  premises,  I  have  no  doubt,  was  in  Christian  hon- 
esty and  sincerity.  Dismissing  all  further  reference  to  the 
painful  past  till  I  see  you  in  the  South,  let  me  now  most  cordially 
invite  you  to  meet  me  at  the  Virginia  Conference  at  Lynch- 
burg, November  13th,  1844,  should  it  please  a  gracious  Provi- 
dence to  enable  me  to  be  there.  And  I  earnestly  desire  that 
you  would,  if  practicable,  make  your  arrangements  to  be  with 
me  at  all  the  Southern  Conferences  in  my  division  of  the  work 
for  the  present  year,  where  I  am  sure  your  services  will  not  be 
'  unacceptable.'  I  am  the  more  solicitous  that  you  should  be 
at  Lynchburg  from  the  fact  that  my  present  state  of  health 
creates  a  doubt  whether  I  shall  be  able  to  reach  it.  I  am  now 
laboring,  and  have  been  for  nearly  three  weeks,  under  the  most 
severe  attack  of  asthma  which  I  have  had  for  six  or  seven 
years, — some  nights  unable  to  lie  down  for  a  moment.  Great 
prostration  of  the  vital  functions,  and  indeed  of  the  whole 
ph3'sical  system,  is  the  consequence.  But  no  efibrt  of  mine  shall 
be  wanting  to  meet  my  work;  and  the  inducements  to  efibrt 
are  greatly  increased  by  the  present  position  of  the  Church, 
and  the  hope  of  relief  from  my  present  affliction  by  the  in- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  1G3 

fluence  of  a  milder  and  more  congenial  climate.  I  cannot 
conclude  without  an  expression  of  my  sincere  sympathy  for 
you,  and  the  second  of  your  joys  and  sorrows,  in  the  deep 
afflictions  through  which  you  have  been  called  to  pass.  May 
the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  sustain  you  both. 

"  Yours  with  sentiments  of  affection  and  esteem, 

"  Joshua  Soulb, 

This  invitation  of  Bishop  Soule  called  down  on  him  severe 
censure  from  the  A^orth.  Dr.  Elliott,  Dr.  Bond,  Dr.  Bangs, 
and  others  denounced  the  measure  as  not  only  unauthorized, 
but  high-handed  and  in  contravention  of  the  decision  of  the 
General  Conference  and  the  Board  of  Bishops.  That  it  con- 
travened no  action  of  the  General  Conference  is  very  clear, 
from  the  fact,  that  whether  the  Bishop  should  labor  or  not  Avas 
to  depend  on  his  own  decision.  That  decision  was  now  had, 
and  as  the  General  Conference  had  prescribed  no  particular 
mode  in  which  it  should  be  obtained  or  given,  there  could  have 
been  no  infraction  of  the  law  or  expressed  will  of  that  body 
in  the  proceeding. 

As  regards  the  Board  of  Bishops,  the  spirit  of  their  decision 
was,  that  if  Bishop  Andrew  should  signify  a  willingness  to  take 
work  on  the  Episcopal  plan,  it  should  be  given  him;  and  the 
Utter  of  that  decision  was,  that  he  should  have  work  assigned 
him  when  he  should  make  written  application  for  it.  That  the 
spirit  of  the  decision  was  fully  met  when  he  accepted  Bishop 
Soule's  invitation  to  aid  him  in  his  circuit  of  Conferences,  can 
hardly  be  doubted;  and  as  that  acceptance  was  a  Avritten 
one,  and  as  the  Bishops  had  not  prohibited  the  making  of  an 
inquiry  or  the  giving  of  an  invitation,  which  might  call  forth 
an  expression  of  willingness  to  labor,  or  an  application  for 
work,  both  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  decision  appear  to 
have  been  sufficiently  fulfilled. 

But  we  will  allow  Bishop  Soule  to  explain  and  defend  his 
own  course  in  this  matter,  in  the  following  letter  published  in 
tlie  Southern  Chi-istian  Advocate,  dated 

"Augusta,  Ga.,  January  4,  1845. 
"  Dear  Brother, — In  the  editorial  of  the  Christian  Advocate 
and  Journal  of  the  18th  ultimo,  I  find  the  following  assertion 
with  special  reference  to  myself:  '  He,  therefore,  claims  for  the 
Episcopacy — nay,  for  any  one  of  the  Bishops,  a  right  to  decide 
on  the  legality  of  any  act  of  the  General  Conference,  and  to 
veto  it,  if,  in  his  judgment,  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
Discipline  of  the  Church.  Thus  a  new  issue  is  added  to  the 
one  M'hich  has  agitated  the  Church  so  fearfully,  and  one  on 
which  it  is  not  possible  to  come  to  any  compromise,  without 
changing  the  cardinal  principles  of  oui*  ecclesiastical  economy.' 


\ 

164  HISTORY   OP  THE   OUGANIZATION  OF  THE 

This  is  a  plain  and  positive  assertion  of  Dr.  Bond,  relative  to 
what  I  claim  as  the  7-ic!:ht  of  Bishops  or  any  one  of  them.  The 
Doctor  must  permit  me,  as  plainly  and  positively,  to  assert 
the  direct  converse  of  his  position,  and  thus  change  the  'new 
issue'  from  the  Northern  and  Southern  departments  of  the 
Church,  to  him  and  myself,  with  the  hope  that  he  may  enjoy 
the  happiness  of  still  believing  that  'there  will  be  no  division,' 
and  yet  shout '  glory  to  God'  over  propositions  for  compromise, 
without  '  changing  the  cardinal  principles  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical economy.'  And  I  assure  the  Doctor,  and  all  con- 
cerned, that  I  will  heartily  join  with  him  in  the  shout,  when 
a  plan  of  compromise  shall  be  proposed  which  does  not  invade 
chartered  rights  and  privileges  of  any  '  grade'  of  our  ministry 
or  membership.  But  that  the  Doctor  should  attempt  to  make 
me  the  author  of  a  '  new  issue'  in  this  controversy,  and  that 
issue  of  such  a  nature' as  to  preclude  all  compromise  without  a 
change  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  Church  polity, 
and  thus  transfer  the  responsibility  of  the  results  of  the  contro- 
versy from  the  parties  concerned  to  me,  I  cannot  but  regard  as 
at  variance  Math  those  principles  which  I  have  been  taught  to 
believe  should  govern  the  actions  of  Christian  ministers  to- 
ward each  other.  The  Doctor  must  not,  he  cannot,  make  me 
tJie '  scapegoat,'  to  l)ear  away  this  responsibility  from  those  to 
whom  it  justly  belongs. 

"  I  assert,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  I  do  not  claim, 
and  that  I  never  have  claimed,  either  for  myself,  or  any  one  of 
tlie  Bishops,  or  all  of  them  conjointly,  the '  right'  which  Dr.  Bond 
dharges  on  me  as  claiming.  And  now  I  cannot  but  sincerely 
and  ardently  desire  that  this  '  new  issue'  being  thus  fairly  made 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  exclusively  between  the  Doctor  and 
myseli",  it  may  not  be  made  a  matter  of  exciting  agitation  in 
the  Church,  in  addition  to  all  Mhich  has  '  so  fearfully'  agitated 
her  before,  at  least  till  the  point  is  settled  between  us,  on  which 
the  'new  issue'  is  now  made. 

"  It  is  very  possible  that  in  writing  my  letter  of  invitation  to 
Bishop  Andrew  to  meet  me  at  the  Virginia  Conference,  and 
accompany  me  to  the  others  in  my  Southern  tour,  with  a  A'iew 
to  his  affording  me  aid  in  the  superintendency,  I  may  have 
traveled  out  of  the  record  of  the  official  instructions  of  the 
General  Conference  for  the  government  of  the  '  action''  of  the 
superintendents  in  the  Bishop's  case,  according  to  Dr.  Bond's 
'  sense''  of  those  instructions.  But  according  to  my  best  judgment 
of  those  instructions,  given  to  the  Bishops,  not  to  Dr.  Bond,  I 
have  done  nothing  but  what  is  i'lilly  provided  for,  and  covered 
by  the  record.  And  I  trust  I  may  presume,  without  ostentation, 
that  I  have  as  good  a  '  right'  to  judge  of  the  meaning  and  im- 
port of  such  instructions  as  my  good  iiicnd  of  the  Christian 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH. 


1^5 


Advocate  and  Journal;  especially  as  I  am  amenable,  not  to 
him,  but  to  the  General  Conference.  And  I  confess  I  should 
hesitate  to  charge  Dr.  Bond  before  the  Church  and  the  com- 
munit}^  with  'claiming  a  right  to  veto  the  acts  of  the  General 
Conference,'  or  of  disregarding  official  instructions  relating  to 
his  ollice,  because  in  my  judgment  he  had  not  kept  within  the 
official  record.  But  it  may  be  the  Doctor  thinks  that  his  office 
requires  him  to  keep  us  all  ri;ght. 

"  I  might  have  thought  that  the  Doctor's  office  required  him 
to  take  a  more  decided  and  active  position  in  sustaining  and 
carrying  out  the  plan  adopted  by  the  General  Conl'erence  for 
the  amicable  separation  of  the  Church,  and  equital)le  division 
of  the  funds;  and  to  have  guarded  his  columns  against  the 
hostile  attacks  which  were  made  both  upon  the  Conference 
and  the  measure.  But  doubtless  he  acted  in  strict  conformity 
to  his  sense  of  the  duties  of  his  office,  in  regard  both  to  the 
Conference  and  their  action  in  the  premises.  It  certainly 
could  not  have  been  the  sense  of  the  General  Conference,  that 
any  of  their  editors  should  pursue  a  course  which  was  either 
designed  or  calculated  to  defeat  their  own  official  acts;  espe- 
cially one  which  was  adopted  with  so  great  unanimity,  and 
truly  Christian  sympathy  and  kindness,  as  the  one  here  alluded 
to.  But  it  does  not  belong  to  my  office  to  accuse  Doctor  Bond 
before  the  Church  or  the  public,  however  I  might  dilfer  from 
him  in  judgment  with  regard  to  his  course.  He  and  myself 
are  both  strictly  '  amenable'  to  a  constitutional  tribunal;  and 
with  all  deference  to  the  Doctor's  age,  and  talents,  and  office, 
and  high  respectability,  both  in  the  civil  and  religious  commu- 
nity, I  must  be  permitted  to  question  his  '  right'  to  pre-judge  me, 
either  by  virtue  of  his  office,  or  otherwise,  and  that  too  before 
I  can  be  heard  in  my  own  defence.  If  the  Doctor  thinks, 
under  all  these  circumstances,  that  such  a  course  is  calculated  to 
effect  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church,  an  object  which  he 
so  ardently  desires,  and  at  the  first  dawning  prospect  of  which 
he  shouts  '  glory  to  God;'  I  can  only  say  that  in  this  as  well  as 
in  regard  to  the  high  probability  of  the  division  of  the  Church, 
on  which  we  have  freely  expressed  our  opinions  before,  we 
differ  widely  in  judgment,  and  future  events  will  show  which 
of  us  is  in  error.  Very  respectfully, 

"  Joshua  Soule," 

After  Bishop  Andrew  had  been  laboring  with  Bishop  Soule 
for  some  months,  in  attending  the  Southern  Conferences,  a 
portion  of  the  Bishops  made  the  following  publication,  which, 
as  it  properly  belongs  to  this  history,  is  here  inserted: — 

"  Dear  Brethren, — The  time  has  arrived,  when,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  tlie  undersigned,  it  is  proper  they  should  respond  to 


1B6  HISTORY    OF  THE    ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

calls  Avhicli  have  been  made,  hoth  privatel}^  and  publicly,  for 
authentic  information  in  regard  to  the  action  of  a  majority  of 
the  Superintendents,  by  which  the  name  of  Bishop  Andrew 
was  omitted  from  the  Plan  of  Episcopal  Visitation,  whicTi 
was  arranged  at  the  close  of  the  late  General  Conference,  and 
published  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  other  oflicial  Journals 
of  the  Church.  The  statements  which  follow,  will,  it  is  be- 
lieved, place  that  action  and  the  grounds  thereof  in  a  view 
intelligible  to  all;  and  beyond  this,  they  have  neither  desire 
nor  intention  to  go  in  this  communication. 

"  On  the  first  day  of  June  last,  the  following  preamble  and 
resolution  were  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church: — 

"Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing 
any  thing  calculated  to  destroy  our  itinerant  general  Super- 
intendency,  and  whereas  Bishop  Andre Vv^  has  become  connected 
with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having 
drawn  after  it  circumstances  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Cxcneral  Conference,  greatly  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his 
olfice  as  an  itinerant  general  Superintendent,  if  not  in  some 
places  entirely  prevent  it;  therefore, — -     • 

^'■Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  the  General  Conference, 
that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his  ollicc  so  long  as  this 
impediment  remains. 

"  On  the  6th  of  June  the  following  note  was  presented  to 
the  General  Conference: — 

"  Reverend  and  Dear  BreUiren, — As  the  case  of  Bishop  An- 
drew unavoidably  involves  the  future  action  of  the  Superin- 
t(>ndents,  which,  in  their  judgment,  in  the  present  position  of 
the  Bishop,  they  have  no  discretion  to  decide  upon;  they 
respectfully  request  from  this  General  Conference  official  in- 
struction in  answer  to  the  following  questions: — 

"1.  Shall  Bishop  Andrew's  name  remain  as  it  now  stands 
in  the  Minutes,  Hymn  Book,  and  Discipline,  or  shall  it  be 
struck  off  of  these  oflicial  records? 

"2.  IIow  shall  the  Bishop  obtain  his  support?  As  provided 
for  in  the  form  of  Discipline,  or  in  some  other  way? 

"3.  What  work,  if  any,  may  the  Bishop  perform;  and  how 
shall  he  be  appointed  to  his  work? 

"Joshua  Soule, 
"  Elijah  Hedding, 
"  Beverly  Waugh, 
"  Thomas  A.  Morris. 

"  To  which  the  General  Conference  responded: — 

"  1.  Resolved,  as  the  sense  of  this  Conference,  That  Bishop 
Andrew's  name  stand  in  the  Minutes,  Hymn-Book,  and  Dis- 
cipline, as  formerly. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  167 

"  2.  That  the  rule  in  relation  to  the  support  of  a  Bishop  and 
his  family,  applies  to  Bishop  Andrew. 

"3.  That  whether  in  any,  and  if  in  any,  in  what  work. 
Bishop  Andrew  be  employed,  is  to  be  determined  by  his  own 
decision  and  action,  in  relation  to  the  previous  action  of  this 
Conference  in  his  case. 

"In  vicAV  of  the  aforesaid  proceedings  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, the  undersigned,  on  the  11th  of  .Tune,  appended  their 
names  to  a  paper  written  in  the  words  which  follow: — 

"  It  is  our  opinion  in  regard  to  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  AndrcAv,  that  it  was  designed 
by  that  body  to  devolve  the  responsibility  of  the  exercise  of 
the  functions  of  his  office  exclusively  on  himself.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  Bishop  Andrew  at  the  time  of  arranging  the  Plan  of 
Episcopal  Visitation  for  the  ensuing  four  years,  and  he  not 
having  notified  us  of  his  desire,  or  purpose,  with  respect  to  it, 
we  should  regard  ourselves  as  acting  in  contravention  of  the 
expressed  will  of  the  General  Conference,  if  we  apportioned 
to  Bishop  Andre\v  any  definite  portion  thereof.  But  if  he 
shall  hereafter  make  a  written  application  for  a  portion  of  the 
general  oversight,  we  should  feel  ourselves  justified  in  assign- 
ing it  to  him. 

"  After  this  paper  was  signed,  and  before  the  parting  of  the 
Superintendents,  it  was  agreed  to  make  out  a  reserved  Plan 
of  Episcopal  Visitation,  including  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  ap- 
portionment of  the  work  thereof,  which  was  done,  and  in- 
trusted to  the  safe  keeping  of  Bishop  Soule,  with  an  explicit 
^understanding,  that  if  he  should  receive  from  Bishop  Andrew 
a  written  application  for  his  portion  of  the  general  Superin- 
tendence, he  was  then,  and  in  that  event,  to  publi.sh  the 
second  or  reserved  plan  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
said  application,  that  the  reason  for  the  substitution  of  the 
second  plan  might  accompany  its  publication.  Such  was  the 
action  of  the  undersigned  in  the  case  presented,  and  such  the 
ground  on  which  it  was  based.  At  present,  this  is  all  that 
they  feel  themselves  called  to  make  public. 

"Elijah  Hedding, 
"  B.  Waugh, 
"  Thomas  A.  Morris. 
"  L.  L.  Hamline." 


The  last  General  Conference  had  provided  in  the  plan  of 
separation,  for  taking  the  sense  of  the  Annual  Conferences  on 
the  subject  of  so  changing  the  sixth  "  Restrictive  Rule"  as  to 
authorize  an  equitable  division  of  the  Book  Concern  with  the 


168  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

Southern  organization,  in  case  the  South  should  find  such  or- 
ganization necessary.  That  body  had  itself  recommended 
such  a  change  by  a  vote  of  147  to  12,  and  it  only  remained 
for  the  constitutional  number  of  votes  to  be  given  in  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  to  give  the  arrangement  full  legal  effect. 
And  as  so  very  large  a  proportion  of  the  delegates  had  ap- 
proved the  change,  it  was  not  doubted  that  the  Conferences 
would  readily  do  the  same, — especially  as  it  was  a  measure 
demanded  by  moral  equity  and  common  justice.  This  rea- 
sonable expectation  was  fully  met  by  several  of  the  Confer- 
ences which  convened  first  after  the  adjom-ment  of  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  and  especially  the  Northern  Conferences,  from 
which  the  South  expected  least;  but  in  most  of  the  Conferences 
calling  themselves  conservative,  the  proposition  was  rejected 
by  a  strong  vote, — even  the  delegates  who  voted  in  its  favor 
in  the  General  Conference,  opposing  it  in  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences of  which  they  Avere  members.  And  before  the 
meeting  of  the  General  Convention,  in  May,  it  was  understood 
tliat  the  Annual  Conferences  had  refused,  so  far  as  their  votes 
could  go  to  that  effect,  to  allow  to  the  South  an  equitable  and 
just  division  of  the  property  of  the  Book  Concern. 

For  this  course  various  reasons  Avere  given,  such  as,  that  it 
was  ill-timed  to  vote  the  South  their  portion  of  the  property 
before  they  had  assumed  a  separate  organization;  that  it  had 
the  appearance  of  inviting  the  South  to  separate,  which  they 
desired  rather  to  discourage  than  promote,  &c.  It  is  sufficient 
for  our  present  purpose  that  we  state  the  fact,  without  specu- 
lating relati\y3  to  the  true  cause  of  it.  Subsequent  events 
perhaps  cast  more  light  on  the  subject  than  previous  professions. 


METHODIST    EFISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  IGO 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Embracing  the  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  at  Louisville,  ik?«^,l  845 . 

The  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  having, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  foregoing  chapter,  acted  with  great 
unanimity  in  approving  the  course  of  the  minority  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference, — in  expressing  the  opinion  that  separation 
was  necessary,  under  the  circumstances,  and  in  approving  the 
holding  of  a  Convention  at  Louisville  in  jMay,  1845,  and 
electing  delegates  to  represent  them  in  that  body,  the  meeting 
of  that  Convention  was  looked  to  with  deep  and  universal  in- 
terest. Hundreds  of  ministers  and  members  from  remote 
points  attended  the  Convention  to  witness  the  result  of  its  de- 
liberations, and  the  entire  Church,  North  and  South,  waited 
with  painful  solicitude  the  final  issue. 

The  official  proceedings  of  that  Convention,  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  record,  as  constituting  a  very  important  part  of  this 
history. 

The  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  Southern  and  South- 
western Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chm'ch,  viz: 
Kentucky,  Missouri,  Holston,  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  Mem- 
phis, Arkansas,  Virginia,  Mississippi,  Texas,  Alabama,  Geor- 
gia, South  Carolina,  Florida,  and  Indian  Mission, — elected- on 
the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference,  on  the  8th  June,  1844,  assembled  in  the  city  of 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  1st  day  of  May,  A.  D.,  1845. 

The  meeting  M'as  called  to  order  at  9  o'clock,  A.  M.,  by  Dr. 
William  Capers,  and  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  of  the  Georgia  Con- 
ference, was  elected  President,  pro  tern.  This  venerable 
Minister  opened  the  Convention  by  reading  the  second  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians;  by  singing  the  ISOth  Hymn, 
containing  an  appropriate  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
by  offering  a  suitable  and  impressive  prayer  to  the  Throne  of 
Grace: — 

Thomas  N.  Ralston,  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  was  then 
chosen  Secretar}^',  pro  tem.  The  Conferences  represented  in 
the  Convention  \vere  then  called  over  in  the  order  in  which 
they  stand  in  the  General  Minutes;  and  the  delegates  pre- 
sented their  certificates  of  election, — the  Convention  having 
decided  that  those  members  who  are  not  furnished  with  cer- 
tificates of  election  shall,  nevertheless,  take  their  seats;  pro- 

15 


170  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

vided  that  the  Presiding  Officer  of  their  respective  Conferences 
or  some  member  present,  attest  their  election. 

The  foHowing  brethren  having;  furnished  the  necessary 
vouchers,  took  their  seats  as  members  of  the  Convention,  to 
wit: — ■ 

Kentucky  Conference. — Henry  B.  Bascom,  Edward  Steven- 
son, Hubbard  H.  Kavanaugh,  Benjamin  T.  Crouch,  WilUam 
tlunn,  George  W.  Tayh:)r,  George  AV.  Brush,  John  C.  Harrison, 
Burr  H.  McCown,  James  King,  John  James,  Thomas  N. 
Jlaiston. 

Misst)URi  Conference. — Andrew  Monroe,  Jesse  Green,  John 
Gianville,  Wesley  Browning,  William  Patton,  John  H.  Lynn, 
Joseph  Boyle,  Thomas  Johnson. 

HdL.sTON  Conference. — Thomas  K.  Catlett,  Thomas  String- 
field,  llufus  M.  Stevens,  Timothy  Sullins,  Creed  Fulton. 

Tennessee  Conference. — Robert  Paine,  John  B.  AIcFerrin, 
Ah'xander  L.  P.  Green,  Fountain  E.  l^itts,  Ambrose  F.  Driskill, 
John  \\'.  Hanner,  Joshua  Boucher,  Thomas  Maddin,  Frcde- 
lick  G.  Ferguson,  Robert  L.  Andrews. 

North  Carolina  Conference. — Samuel  S.  Bryant,  Hezckiah 
(i.  Leigh,  Bennet  T.  Blake,  Robert  J.  Car.son,  Peter  Daub, 
Jolin  T.  Brame. 

Memphis  Conference. — Moses  Brock,  George  W.  I).  Harris, 
William  McMahon,  Thomas  Joyner,  A.sbury  Davidson,  Wilson 
L.  McAlister,  Thomas  Smith. 

vVrkansas  Conferenc^e. — John  Harrell,  John  F.  Truslow. 

Virginia  Conference. — John  Eai-ly,  Thomas  Crowder,  Wil- 
Uam A.  Smith,  Leroy  M.  Lee,  Abraham  Penn,  David  8.  Dog- 
gett,  Henry  B.  CoavIcs,  Anthony  Dibrell. 

Mississipri  Conference. — Lowell  '>  ampbell. 

Texas  Conference. — Littleton  Fow1(m-,  Francis  Wilson. 

Aeaisama  Conference. — Jefferson  Hamilton,  Jesse  Boring, 
Thomas  H.  Capers,  Eugene  V.  Levert,  Elisha  Calloway, 
'J'homas  O.  Summers. 

Georgia  Conference.— Lovick  Pierce,  James  E.  Evans,  John 
W.  Glenn,  Samuel  Anthony,  Augustus  B.  Longstreet,  Isaac 
Jioring,  James  B.Payne. 

Sni-iH  Carolina  C(jnference. — William  Capers,  William  M. 
Wightman,  Hugh  A.  C.  AValker,  Samuel  Dunwody,  Bond 
English,  Samuel  W.  Capers. 

Florida  Conference. — Peyton  P.  Smith,  Thomas  C.  Benning. 

Indian  Mis-sion  Conference. — Edward  T.  Peery,  David  B. 
Cu  milling. 

On  motion  of  Augustus  B.  Longstreet  and  William  Capers, 
it  was 

Bcan/vcd,  That  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Cliurch, 
now   in  attendance,  be  requested  to  preside  over  the  meeting, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  171 

under  such  arrang-emcnts  as  they  may  make  from  day  to  day 
fimong  themselves.  This  Resolution  was  adopted  unani- 
mously, by  a  standing  vote. 

Bishop  Soule  being  present,  informed  the  Convention  that  he 
would  express  his  views  on  the  suljject  of  this  llesolution,  both 
on  behalf  of  himself  and  his  colleague,  Bishop  Andrew  (who 
was  also  present,)  on  to-morrow  morning-. 

On  motion  of  .John  Early,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  all  elections  for  othcers  be  by  ballot,  when 
more  than  one  is  nominated;  otherwise  by  nomination  and 
election. 

An  election  of  Secretary  then  took  place,  and  Thomas  O. 
Summers  was,  on  the  first  balloting,  duly  elected.  Thomas 
N.  Ralston  was,  in  like  manner,  duly  elected  assistant  Secretary- 

On  motion  of  John  Early  the  following  Resolutions  were 
adopted: — 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  ascertain  wheth- 
er or  not  a  Reporter  for  the  Convention  can  be  procured,  and  to 
report  on  to-morrow  morning. 

Brothers  Early,  Bascom,  R.  Paine,  Hamilton,  English,  Wight- 
man,  L.  M.  Lee,  McFerrin,  and  George  W.  Brush  were  a])- 
pointed  said  committee. 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  instructed  to  purchase  a 
suitable  Book  in  which  to  record  the  proceedings  of  this  body. 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  draft  rules  for 
the  government  of  the  Convention. 

Brothers  Longstreet,  W.  Capers,  and  W.  A.  Smith  \vere  aj)- 
pointed  said  committee. 

On  motion  of  Edward  Stevenson,  it  M'as 

Resolved,  That  the  Presiding  Elder  of  the  Louisville  District, 
in  connection  with  the  Preachers  in  the  several  Charg(^s  of 
this  city,  be  requested  to  supply  the  pulpits  and  superintend 
public  worship  in  the  different  Churches  that  may  be  tendered 
to  our  use  during  the  session  of  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  IL  H.  Kavanaugh,the  Convention  appointed 
half  past  eight  o'clock,  to-morrow  morning,  as  the  next  hour 
of  meeting,  and  then  adjourned  with  prayer,  by  Samuel 
Dunwody. 

FRIDAY  MORNING,  MAY  2. 

Convention  met  according  to  adjournment.  The  devotional 
exercises  were  conducted  by  William  Capers.  The  roll  was 
called,  and  the  names  of  Whiteford  Smith,  Robert  J.  Boyd, 
George  F.  Pierce  and  Greenbury  Garrett  Avere  duly  entered, 
they  having  furnished  the  necessary  vouchers.  The  Minutes 
were  then  read,  corrected,  and  approved. 


172  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OP   THE 

The  committee  appointed  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  a  Re- 
porter can  be  procm'ed  for  the  Convention,  reported  as  follows: — 

The  committee  appointed  to  consider  the  propriety  of  em- 
ploying a  Reporter,  beg  to  offer  the  following  Resolution  as 
embodying  their  views  on  the  subject: — 

Resolved,  That  William  M.  Wightman,  Leroy  M.  Lee,  and 
John  B.  McFerrin  be  a  committee  to  prepare  a  full  and  correct 
synopsis  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  and  furnish  the 
Editors  of  the  Louisville  Journal  with  a  copy  each  day,  at  9 
o'clock,  P.  M.,  for  publication  the  next  morning,  and  that  they 
be  authorized  to  employ  any  assistance  they  may  deem  meet, 
at  the  expense  of  the  Convention; — it  being  understood  that 
the  cost  will  not  exceed  twenty-five  dollars. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

John  Early,  Ch'n, 

The  committee's  Report  was  adopted.  The  committee  ap- 
pointed to  frame  Rules  for  the  government  of  the  Convention, 
made  the  following  Report,  which  was  adopted: — 

1.  The  Convention  shall  meet  at  half  past  eight  o'clock,  A. 
M.,  and  adjourn  at  half  past  twelve  o'clock,  P.  M.,  but  may 
alter  the  times  of  meeting  and  adjournment  at  their  discretion. 

2.  The  President  shall  take  the  Chair  precisely  at  the  hour 
to  which  the  Convention  stood  adjourned,  and  cause  the  same 
to  be  opened  by  reading  the  Scriptures,  singing,  and  prayer; 
and  on  the  appearance  of  a  quorum,  shall  have  the  Journals 
of  the  preceding  day  read  and  approved,  "vvhen  the  business  of 
the  Convention  shall  proceed  in  the  following  order,  viz: — 

1.  Reports,  first  of  the  standing  and  then  of  the  select 
committees. 

2.  Petitions  and  memorials. 

3.  The  President  shall  decide  all  questions  of  order,  arising 
under  these  Rules,  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  Convention;  but 
in  case  of  such  appeal,  the  question  shall  be  taken  without 
debate. 

4.  He  shall  appoint  all  committees  not  otherwise  specially 
ordered  by  the  Convention;  but  any  member  may  decline  serv- 
ing on  more  than  one  committee  at  the  same  time. 

5.  All  motions  or  resolutions  introduced  by  any  member, 
shall  be  reduced  to  writing,  if  the  President,  Secretary,  or  any 
two  members  request  it. 

C.  When  a  motion  or  resolution  is  made  and  seconded,  or  a 
report  presented,  and  is  read  by  the  Secretary  or  stated  by  the 
President,  it  shall  be  deemed  in  possession  of  the  Convention; 
but  any  motion  or  resolution  may  be  withdrawn  by  the  mover 
at  any  time  before  decision  or  amendment. 

7.  A^o  new  motion  or  resolution  shall  be  made  until  the  one 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  173 

under  consideration  is  disposed  of;  which  may  bo  done  by 
adoption  or  rejection,  unless  one  of"  the  following  motions 
should  intervene,  which  motion  shall  have  precedence  in  the 
order  in  which  they  are  placed,  viz:  For  indefinite  postpone- 
ment; a  lying  on  the  table;  reference  to  a  committee:  post- 
ponement to  a  given  time;  amendment,  or  a  substitute — but 
an  amendment  to  an  amendment,  and  an  amendment  of  a 
substitute,  shall  be  disposed  of  before  the  original  amendment 
or  substitate. 

8.  No  member  shall  be  interrupted  when  speaking,  except 
by  the  President,  to  call  him  to  order  when  he  departs  from 
the  question — uses  personalities  or  disrespectful  language;  but 
any  member  may  call  the  attention  of  the  President  to  the. 
subject,  when  he  deems  a  speaker  out  of  order;  and  any  mem- 
ber may  explain  if  he  thinks  himself  misrepresented. 

9.  When  any  member  is  about  to  speak  in  debate,  or  to 
deliver  any  matter  to  the  Convention,  he  shall  rise  from  his 
seat  and  respectfully  address  himself  to  the  President. 

10.  No  person  shall  speak  more  than  twice  on  the  same 
question,  nor  more  than  fifteen  minutes  at  one  time  without 
leave  of  the  Convention;  nor  shall  any  person  speak  more  than 
once  until  every  member  choosing  to  speak  shall  have  spoken; 
but  any  one  entitled  to  the  floor  may  resign  his  place,  if  ht^ 
choose,  to  one  Avho  has  spoken;  in  Avhich  case  he  will  be  con- 
sidered as  having  availed  himself  of  his  privilege  to  speak. 

11.  When  any  motion  or  resolution  shall  have  passed,  it 
shall  be  in  order  for  any  member  who  voted  in  the  majority 
to  move  for  a  re-consideration. 

12.  No  member  shall  absent  himself  from  the  service  of  the 
Convention  Avithout  leave,  unless  he  be  sick  or  unable  to  attend. 

13.  No  member  shall  be  allowed  to  vote  on  any  question, 
who  is  not  within  the  bar  at  the  time  when  such  question  is 
put  by  the  President,  except  by  leave  of  the  Convention,  when 
such  member  has  been  necessarily  absent. 

14.  Every  member  who  shall  be  Mithin  the  bar  at  the  time: 
the  question  is  put,  shall  give  his  vote;  unless  the  Convention, 
for  special  reason,  excuse  him. 

15.  A  motion  to  adjourn  shall  always  be  in  order,  and  shall 
be  decided  without  debate. 

Bishop  Soule  then  rose  and  addressed  the  Convention,  a^ 
follows: — 

'•I  rise  on  the  present  occasion  to  offer  a  few  remarks  to  this 
Convention  of  ministers,  under  the  influence  of  feelings  mort- 
solemn  and  impressive  than  I  recollect  ever  to  have  expe- 
rienced before.  The  occasion  is  certainly  one  of  no  ordinary 
interest  and  solemnity,     I  am  deeply  impressed  with  a  con- 

15* 


174  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

viction  of  the  important  results  of  your  deliberations  and 
decisions  in  relation  to  that  numerous  body  of  Christians  and 
Christian  ministers  you  here  represent,  and  to  the  country  at 
large.  And  knowing,  as  I  do,  the  relative  condition  of  the 
vast  community  where  your  acts  must  be  extensively  felt,  I 
cannot  but  feel  a  deep  interest  in  the  business  of  the  Conven- 
tion, both  as  it  respects  yourselves,  and  the  millions  who  must 
bo  affected  by  your  decisions.  With  such  views  and  feel- 
ings, you  will  indulge  me  in  an  expression  of  confident  hope 
that  all  your  business  will  be  conducted  with  the  greatest  de- 
liberation, and  with  that  purity  of  heart,  and  moderation  of 
temper  suitable  to  yourselves,  as  a  body  of  Christian  ministers, 
and  to  the  important  concerns  which  have  called  you  together 
in  this  city. 

"The  opinion  which  I  formed  at  the  close  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  that  the  proceedings  of  that  body  would  result  in  a 
division  of  the  Church,  was  not  induced  by  the  impulse  of  excite- 
ment; but  was  predicated  of  principles  and  facts,  after  the  most 
deliberate  and  mature  consideration.  That  opinion  I  have 
freely  expressed.  And  however  deeply  I  have  regretted  such 
a  result,  believing  it  to  be  inevitable,  my  efforts  have  been 
made,  not  to  prevent  it,  but  rather  that  it  might  be  attended 
with  the  least  injury,  and  the  greatest  amount  of  good  which 
the  case  would  admit.  I  was  not  alone  in  this  opinion.  A 
number  of  aged  and  influential  ministers  entertained  the  same 
views.  And,  indeed,  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  any  one, 
intimately  acquginted  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  the  rela- 
tive position  of  the  North  and  South,  could  arrive  at  any  other 
conclusion.  Nothing  has  transpired  since  the  close  of  the 
General  Conference  to  change  the  opinion  I  then  formed;  but 
subsequent  events  have  rather  confirmed  it.  In  view  of  the 
certainty  of  the  issue,  and  at  the  same  time  ardently  desirous 
that  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Church  might  be  in  peace 
and  harmony  within  their  own  respective  bounds,  and  cultivate 
the  spirit  of  Christian  fellowship,  brotherly  kindness,  and 
charity  for  each  other,  I  cannot  but  consider  it  an  auspicious 
event  that  the  sixteen  Annual  Conferences,  represented  in  this 
Convention,  have  acted  with  such  extraordinary  unanimity  in 
the  measures  they  have  taken  in  the  premises.  In  the  South- 
ern Conferences  which  I  have  attended,  I  do  not  recollect  that 
there  has  been  a  dissenting  voice  with  respect  to  the  necessity 
of  a  separate  organization;  and  although  their  official  acts  in 
deciding  the  important  question,  have  been  marked  with  that 
clearness  and  decision  which  should  afford  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  they  have  acted  under  a  solemn  conviction  of  duty 
to  Christ,  and  to  the  people  of  their  charge,  they  have  been 
equally  distinguished  by  moderation  and  candor.     And  as  far 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  175 

as  I  have  been  informed,  all  the  other  Conferences  have  pursued 
a  similar  course. 

"It  is  ardently  to  be  desired  that  the  same  unanimity  may 
prevail  in  the  counsels  of  this  Convention  as  distinguished,  in 
such  a  remarkable  manner,  the  views,  and  deliberations,  and 
decisions  of  your  constituents.  When  it  is  recollected  that  it 
is  not  only  for-  yourselves,  and  the  present  ministry  and  mem- 
bership of  the  Conferences  you  represent,  that  you  are  as- 
sembled on  this  occasion;  but  that  millions  of  the  present  race, 
and  generations  yet  unborn,  may  be  affected,  in  their  most 
essential  interests,  by  the  results  of  your  deliberations,  it  will 
occur  to  you  how  important  it  is  that  you  should  "  do  all  things 
as  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God."  Let  all  your  acts, 
dear  brethren,  be  accompanied  with  much  prayer  for  that 
wisdom  ivfiich  is  from  above. 

''While  you  are  thus  impressed  with  the  importance  and  so- 
lemnity of  the  subject  w'hich  has, occasioned  the  Convention, 
and  of  the  high  responsibility  under  which  you  act,  I  am  con- 
fident you  will  cultivate  the  spirit  of  Christian  moderation  and 
forbearance;  and  that  in  all  your  acts  you  will  keep  strictly 
Vv'ithin  the  limits  and  provisions  of  the  "  plan  of  separation" 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  with  great  unanimity  and 
apparent  Christian  kindness.  I  can  have  no  doubt  of  the  firm 
adherence  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church  in  the 
Conferences  yoa  represent,  to  the  doctrines,  rules,  order  of 
government,  and  forms  of  worship  contained  in  our  excellent 
book  of  discipline.  P^or  myself,  I  stand  upon  the  basis  of 
Methodism  as  contained  in  this  book,  and  from  it  I  intend 
never  to  be  removed.  I  cannot  be  insensible  to  the  expression 
of  your  confidence  in  the  resolution  you  have  unanimously 
adopted,  requesting  me  to  preside  over  the  Convention  in  con- 
junction with  my  colleagues.  And  after  having  weighed  the 
subject  with  careful  deliberation,  I  have  resolved  to  accept 
your  invitation,  and  discharge  the  duties  of  the  important 
trust  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  My  excellent  colleague,  Bishop 
Andrew,  is  of  the  same  mind,  and  will  cordially  participate  in 
the  duties  of  the  Chair. 

"I  am  requested  to  state  to  the  Convention,  that  our  worthy 
and  excellent  colleague.  Bishop  Morris,  believes  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  decline  a  participation  in  the  presidential  duties.  He 
a.ssigns  such  reasons  for  so  doing  as  are,  in  the  judgment  of 
his  colleagues,  perfectly  satisfactory;  and  it  is  presumed  they 
would  be  considered  in  the  same  light  by  the  Convention.  In 
conclusion,  I  trust  that  all  things  will  be  done  in  that  spirit 
which  will  be  approved  of  God.  And  devoutly  pray  that  your 
acts  may  result  in  the  advancement  of  the  Redeemer's  kind- 
dom,  and  the  salvation  of  the  souls  of  men." 


176  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

Bishop  Soule  then  took  the  Chair,  which  was  courteously 
vacated  by  Dr.  Pierce. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  business  of  committees  be  transacted  in 
the  absence  of  all  other  persons  than  the  members  of  the 
Convention.  • 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Capers,  it  ^vas 

Jlcsolvcd,  That  a  committee  of  lifteen  delegates  be  appointed 
to  prepare  a  Plan  to  be  recommended  to  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  represented  in  this  Convention,  for  the  manage- 
ment and  support  of  Missions  connected  with  said  Conferences; 
and  that  this  committee  report  within  the  next  eight  days. 

John  G.  Jones,  Green  M.  Rogers,  Benjamin  M.  Drake, 
Samuel  W.  Spoor,  and  William  U.  Watkins  presented  their 
certilicates  of  election  to  the  Convention, — their  names  were 
enrolled, — and  took  their  seats  accordingly. 

The  Convention  then  designated  the  third  pillar  from  the 
altar  the  bar  of  the  House. 

On  motion  of  J.  Early  and  W.  A.  Smith,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  two  members,  from  each  An- 
nual Conference  represented  in  this  Convention,  be  appointed, 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  take  into  consideration  the  propriety 
and  necessity  of  a  Southern  organization,  according  to  the 
plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference; 
together  with  the  acts  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  on 
tJiis  subject,  and  report  the  best  method  of  securing  the  objects 
contemplated  in  the  appointment  of  this  Convention. 

On  motion  of  John  Early  and  Thomas  Crowder  the  forego- 
ing committee  was  chosen  by  the  respective  delegation,  and 
aj'e  as  follows: — 

Kentucky  Conference.— Henry  B.  Bascom  and  Edward  Sta- 
re nson. 

Missouri. — William  Patton  and  Andrew  Monroe. 
Holston. — Thomas  K.  Catlett  and  Thomas  Stringfield. 
Tennessee. — Robert  Paine  and  Fountain  E.  Pitts. 
North  Carolina. — Ilezekiah  G.  Leigh  and  Peter  Daub. 
Mcmj)his. — George  VV.  D.  Harris  and  Moses  Brock, 
Arkansas. — .lohn  Harrell  and  John  F.  Truslow. 
Virginia. — John  Pearly  and  William  A.  Smith. 
Mississippi. — ^ William  Winans  and  Benjamin  M.  Drake. 
Texas. — Francis  Wilson  and  Littleton  Prowler. 
Alabama. — Jetferson  Hamilton  and  Jesse  Boring. 
Georgia. — Lovick  Pierce  and  Augustus  B.  Longstreet. 
South  Carolina. — William  Capers  and  William  M.  Wightman. 
Florida. — ^Thomas  C.  Benning  and  Peyton  P.  Smith. 
Indian  Mission. — Edward  T.  Peery  and  David  B,  Cumming. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  177 

Certain  documents  were  presented  by  John  Early  and  Leroy 
M.  Lee;  also  communications  from  members  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  on  the  Lexington  District  and  in  New- 
port station,  Kentucky  Conference,  all  of  which  were  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Organization — as  also  a  communication 
from  the  Rev.  Stephen  Chipley. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  all  memorials  on  Church  Organization  be  re- 
ferred without  vote  to  the  same  committee. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  William  Capers,  it  w^as 

Resolved,  That  the  committee  on  Missions  be  constituted  of 
fifteen  delegates,  one  from  each  Annual  Conference. 

A  communication  from  the  Young  Men's  Mercantile  Library 
Association  of  Louisville,  inviting  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  the  use  of  their  Library  and  Reading  Room,  having  been 
received  and  read,  on  motion  of  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Convention  be  tendered, 
through  the  Secretary,  to  the  Association  for  their  polite 
invitation. 

Religious  exercises  then  ensued,  in  which  Dr.  William  Ca- 
pers, father  William  Burke,  Bishop  Morris,  and  Bishop  Soule 
took  the  lead.     The  Convention  then  adjourned. 

SATURDAY   MORNING,  MAY  3. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  The  devo- 
tional exercises  were  conducted  by  the  venerable  John  Early, 
of  the  Virginia  Conference. 

The  roll  w^as  then  called,  and  the  names  of  William  Winans, 
of  the  Mississippi  Conference,  and  Thomas  Sanford,  of  the 
Georgia  Conference,  were  duly  entered — they  having  produced 
the  necessary  vouchers. 

Certain  communications,  on  organization,  were  received 
from  the  Rev.  William  Burke,  of  Cincinnati,  J.  H.  Moore  of 
Lexington,  Missouri,  from  Shelbyville  station,  Kentucky  Con- 
ference, by  Edward  Stevenson — also  from  Lexington  district; 
from  Good  Hope,  No  Creek  Society,  Yelvington  circuit,  Hardins- 
burg  district;  from  JVIinerva  and  Flemingsburg  circuits,  Au- 
gusta and  Hardinsburg  districts,  Kentucky  Conference — and 
from  Batesville  station,  Arkansas  Conference.  These  were  all 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Organization. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  A.  B.  Longstreet,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  after  Tuesday,  the  sixth  instant,  no  new 
Memorial,  or  Petition,  will  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Organization. 

On  motion  of  Alexander  L.  P.  Green,  Bishop  Soule  was  re- 


178  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    <  )F  THE 

quostPtl  to  furnish  for  piil:)lication  tlie   roiiuirks  wliicli  he  sub- 
luitted  to  the  Convention  on  yesterday. 

The  Bishop  then  presented  the  hst  of  members  of  the  Mi?»- 
sion  committee — it  is  as  follows: — 

South  Carolina  Conference. — Dr.  William  Capei-s. 

Geor^^ia. — James  E.  Evans. 

Virginia. — Thomas  Crowder. 

Texas. — Littleton  Fowler. 

Mis.wnri. — Thomas  .Tohnson. 

Kentucky. — Hubbard  H.  Kavanaugh. 

Holston. — Creed  Fulton. 

Tennessee. — Alexander  L.  P.  Green. 

North  Carolina.-— Bennet  T.  Blake. 

Memphis. — -William  McMahon. 

Mississippi. — SaiT)U(d  W.  Speer. 

Alabama. — Elisha  Call  away. 

Florida. — P(^yton  P.  Smith. 

hitlian  Mission. — Edward  T.  Peery. 

A  rkansas. — John  Harrell. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  with  the  benediction,  by  the 
Presidinja:  Bishop — iS^ivins;  the  remainder  of  the  morning-  to  the 
committee  on  organization. 


MONDAY  MORNING,  MAY  5. 

Convention  met.  Opened  Avith  the  usual  devotions  by  Dr. 
William  AVinans,  of  the  Mississippi  Conferimce.  The  roll 
was  called,  and  the  name  of  Robert  Alexander  duly  entered — 
he  having  presented  his  certificate  of  election  by  the  Texas 
Conference.     Minutes i-ead. and  approved. 

Certain  communications  were  received  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Organization,  to  wit: — 

Two  by  William  A.  Smith,  from  J.  Stewart,  Kanawha  district, 
Ohio  Conference. 

Two  by  Benjamin  T.  Crouch,  from  Hardinsburg  district,  and 
one  from  Millersburg  circuit,  Lexington  district,  Kentucky  Con- 
ference. 

One  by  John  Harrell,  from  Fayetteville  circuit,  Arkansas 
Conference. 

One  by  Edward  Stevenson,  from  JefTersontown  and  Cane- 
run  Classes,  Jeffersontown  circuit. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  William  Winans,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization  be  instructed 
to  iiu^uire  whether  or  not  anything  has  transpired,  during  tlio 
paat  year,  to  render  it   possible  to  maintain  the"  unity  of  tho 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.-  170 

Methodist  Episcopal  Cliui-ch,  under  the  same  Genei'al  Confer- 
ence jurisdiction,  Avithout  tlie  ruin  of  Southern  Methodism. 

On  motion  of  Benjamin  M.  Drake,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization  be,  and  are 
hereby  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  propriety  of  reporting; 
resolutions  in  case  a  division  should  take  place,  leaving  tlie 
way  open  for  re-union  on  terms  which  shall  not  compromise 
th(!  interest  of  the  Sout/ic/-/i,  and  which  shall  meet,  as  far  as 
may  be,  the  views  of  the  Norihcni  portion  of  the  Church. 

])r.  William  A.  Smith  and  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  presented  the 
following  resolution,  which  at  their  request  was  laid  on  the 
table,  to  be  taken  up  on  to-morrow  morning. 

Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  the  Southern  and  South-western  States,  in  General 
Convention  assembled,  That  we  cannot  sanction  the  action 
of  the  l^te  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  by  remaining  under  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  that  body,  without  deep  and  last- 
ing injury  to  the  interests  of  the  Church  and  the  country;  we, 
therefore,  hereby  instruct  the  committee  on  organization,  that 
if  upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  subject,  they  tind 
that  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  to  hope  that  the  Northern 
majority  will  recede  from  their  position  and  give  some  safe 
guaranty  for  the  future  security  of  our  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
rights,  that  they  report  in  favor  of  a  separation  from  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  said  General  Conference. 

On  motion  of  Thomas  Crowder  the  Convention  then  ad- 
journed, with  the  benediction,  by  Bishop  Soule.  the  presiding 
Bishop. 

TUESDAY  MORNING,  MAY  G. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  The  ses- 
sion was  opened  with  the  usual  devotions  by  George  W.  D. 
Harris,  of  the  jMemphis  Conference.  Tlie  reading  of  the  roll 
was  dispensed  with.     The  Minvites  were  read  and  approved. 

Certain  connnunications  were  received  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Organization,  to  wit: — 

Three  by  Dr.  Henry  B.  Bascom,  viz:  one  from  Brook  Street 
station,  Louisville;  one  from  Hartford  circuit,  Hardinsburg 
District;  and  one  from  Bowling  Green  station,  Kentucky  Con- 
ference. 

One  by  William  Gunn,  from  Louisville  circuit,  Kentucky 
Conference. 

One  by  Hubbard  H.  Kavanaugh,  from  Brook  Street  station, 
LouLiville,  Kentucky  Conference. 

Dr.  William  A.  Smith  then  delivered  an  elaborate  speecii 


180  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

in  support  of  the  resolution  which  he  laid  on  the  table  on  yes- 
terday. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Augustus  B.  Longstreet,  the  Convention 
then  adjourned,  with  the  benediction  by  the  presiding  Bishop. 

WEDNESDAY  MORNING,  MAY  7. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  Chair.  The  ses- 
sion was  opened  with  the  usual  devotions  by  Thomas  Crow- 
der,  of  the  Virginia  Conference.  The  Minutes  Avere  read  and 
approved.  Bishop  Andrew  then  vacated  the  Chair,  which 
was  taken  by  Bishop  Soule. 

The  resolution  under  discussion  was  read  and  supported  by 
Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  in  an  able  speech  of  the  length  of  an  hour 
and  a  half.  Dr.  William  Capers  followed  in  support  of  the 
resolution,  and  spoke  with  great  pathos  for  three  quarters  of 
an  hour. 

On  motion  of  James  E.  Evans,  the  Convention  then  ad- 
journed, with  the  benediction  by  the  Bishop;  giving  the  re- 
mainder of  the  morning  to  the  Committee  on  Organization. 

THURSDAY  MORNING,  MAY  8. 

Convention  met.  The  Bishops  not  being  present,  Dr.  Lovick 
Pierce  was  called  to  the  Chair,  and  the  session  was  opened 
with  the  usual  devotions  by  Benjamin  T.  Crouch,  of  the  Ken- 
tucky Conference.  Bishop  Soule  then  appeared  and  took  the 
Chair.     The  Minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

The  name  of  Jacob  Custer  was  entered  on  the  roll  of  the 
Convention;  he  having  furnished  his  certificate  of  election  bj' 
the  Arkansas  Conference. 

A  communication  from  J.  Cobb,  Dean  of  the  Faculty  of  the 
Medical  Institute  of  Louisville,  was  received  and  read  by  the 
Secretary.  On  motion  of  William  M.  Wightman,  the  Secre- 
tary was  instructed  to  write  a  letter  of  thanks  in  recognition 
of  the  courtesy. 

On  motion  of  Bennet  T.  Blake,  the  resolution  under  discus- 
sion was  laid  on  the  table  for  the  present. 

On  motion  of  John  Early, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  be  called  the 
Committee  on  Education,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  take  into 
consideration  the  condition  of  our  schools  and  colleges,  and 
recommend  the  best  method  of  improving  them. 

On  motion  of  John  Early, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  be  called  the 
Committee  on  Finance,  whose  duty  shall  be  to  consider  the 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  181 

best  method  of  securing  a  just  portion  of  the  Book  Concern 
and  Chartered  Fund,  and  recommend  the  best  financial  system 
for  our  future  operation. 

The  resolution  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  was  then  taken  up, 
on  motion  of  Lewell  Campbell,  and  sustained  by  him  in  a  few 
earnest  and  appropriate  remarks.  He  was  followed,  in  an 
eloquent  speech  of  an  hour's  length,  by  George  F.  Pierce,  of 
the  Georgia  Conference. 

On  motion  of  Thomas  C.  Benning,  the  Convention  then  ad- 
journed, to  meet  at  10^  o'clock  on  to-morrow  morning;  the 
Bi-shop  pronouncing  the  benediction. 

FRIDAY  MORNING,  MAY  9. 

Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Bishop  Andrew 
in  the  chair.  The  usual  devotions  were  conducted  by  Andrew 
Monroe,  of  the  Missouri  Conference.  The  Minutes  were  read 
and  approved. 

Re]>orts  being  called  for,  the  Committee  on  Missions  not 
being  ready  to  make  their  report,  asked  longer  time,  which 
was  granted  them. 

The  Bishop  announced  the  Committee  on  Finance.  It  is 
composed  of  the  following  members:— John  Early,  Lovick 
Pierce,  William  Winans,  Alexander  L.  P.  Green,  Benjamin  T. 
( Touch. 

He  announced,  also,  the  Committee  on  Education.  The 
following  members  constitute  that  committee: — Robert  Paine, 
Augustus  B.  Longstreet,  David  S.  Doggett,  Burr  H.  McCown, 
Benjamin  M.  Drake,  Creed  Fulton,  Wesley  Browning,  Little- 
ton Fowler,  Samuel  S.  Bryant. 

On  motion  of  John  B.  McFerrin, 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Finance  be  instructed  to 
devise  ways  and  means  to  defray  the  expenses  incurred  by 
Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  in  attending  this  Convention,  and 
report  accordingly. 

The  resolution  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  was  then  called  up, 
and  supported  by  Dr.  Augustus  B.  Longstreet,  in  a  speech  that 
ran  beyond  the  hour  of  adjournment,  which  took  place,  with 
the  benediction  by  the  Bishop. 

SATURDAY  MORNING,  MAY  10. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  The  usual 
religious  exercises  were  conducted  by  James  E.  Evans,  of  the 
Georgia  Conference.     The  Minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

A  communication  from  W.  F.  Bullock,  President  of  the 
Kentucky  Institution  of  the  Blind,  inviting  the  members  of  the 

16 


182  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

Convention  to  visit  the  Institution,  was  received  and  read  by 
the  Secretary,  who,  on  motion  of  Thomas  Crowder,  was  in- 
structed to  return  the  thanks  of  the  Convention  to  the  President 
of  said  Institution  for  the  polite  invitation. 

A  communication  from  the  members  of  Durrett's  class,  Rock 
circuit,  Missouri  Conference,  signed  by  Charles  Carthra  and 
Mortimer  D.  Gaines,  praying  for  a  separate  organization,  was 
handed  in  by  Jesse  Green,  and  read  by  the  Secretary. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  the  Secretary  was  instructed  to 
lbr\Aard  a  certain  communication  from  the  Ministers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  to  the 
Ilev.  Dr.  Elliott,  editor  of  the  Western  Christian  Advocate, 
(•■orrecting  certain  misstatements  which  occurred  in  his  paper 
of  May  9th,  in  regard  to  alleged  movements  in  this  city  in 
opposition  to  the  Southern  organization. 

John  B.  McFerrin  asked  leave  to  go  home,  for  reasons  which 
he  assigned.     The  Convention  could  not  grant  his  request. 

Littleton  Fowler  asked  leave  to  absent  himself  until  Monday 
next — it  was  granted  him. 

The  resolution  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  was  then  taken  up, 
and  Dr.  Augustus  B.  Longstreet  continued  his  speech  for  one 
hour.  He  was  followed  by  the  venerable  Samuel  Dmiwody, 
of  the  South  Carolina  Conference,  who  reasoned  well  on  the 
resolution  for  more  than  an  hour.  Dr.  William  Capers  made 
a  few  explanatory  remarks,  after  which  Dr.  Robert  Paine 
claimed  the  floor,  and  on  motion  of  Thomas  C.  Benning,  the 
Convention  adjourned,  with  the  benediction  by  Dr.  Lovick 
Pierce,  who,  for  the  time  being,  washlling  the  Chair. 

MONDAY  MORNING,  MAY  12. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  The  usual 
devotions  were  conducted  by  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  of  the  Georgia 
Conference.     The  Minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

Certain  Petitions  from  the  citizens  of  Memphis,  asking  the 
location  of  the  Southern  Book  Concern  in  that  city,  were  pre- 
sented by  Moses  Brock — read  and  laid  on  the  table.  On  mo- 
tion of  Edward  Stevenson,  a  committee  was  ordered,  to  whom 
such  memorials  may  be  referred. 

A  similar  Petition  from  the  Brook-street  Charge,  Louisville, 
Kentucky,  was  received,  read,  and  placed  with  the  foregoing. 

The  resolution  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  was  then  taken  up, 
and  its  merits  discussed,  most  ably  and  patiently,  in  a  speech, 
by  Dr.  Robert  Paine.  The  Bishop  then  announced  the  com- 
mittee on  the  Book  Concern  and  Periodicals, — it  consists  of 
the  following  members: — Dr.  W^illiam  Winans,  Edward  Ste- 
venson, Moses  Brock,  Hugh  A.  C.  Wallier,  Thomas  Crowder, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  183 

and  on  motion  of  Andrew  Moncpe,  Thomas  Johnson  was 
added  to  the  foregoinj^:. 

Wilham  Winans  asked  to  be  released  from  serving  on  tlic 
Committee  on  Finance.  At  his  nomination,  John  G.  Jones 
was  chosen  to  supply  his  place. 

Thomas  Crowder,  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  claimed  tin- 
floor,  and,  on  motion  of  Ilezekiah  G.  Leigh,  the  Conventiort 
adjourned  with  the  benediction  by  the  Bishop. 

TUESDAY  MORNING,  MAY    13. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  Opened 
with  the  usual  services  by  Thomas  Johnson,  of  the  Missouri 
Conference.     The  Minutes  Mere  read  and  approved. 

The  resolution  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  was  then  taken  up 
and  sustained  for  about  one  hour,  in  a  speech  by  Thomas 
Crowder,  of  the  Virginia  Conference. 

On  motion  of  George  W.  Brush,  the  discussion  of  the  Reso- 
lution was  suspended  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to  present 
certain  communications  from  the  stations  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  praying  for  the  lo- 
cation of  the  Book  Concern  and  Newspaper  in  said  city.  ( )ne 
of  the  documents  was  read,  and  all  were  referred  to  t\w  np- 
propriate  committee. 

James  E.  Evans  offered  the  following  resolution: — 

Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  the  Convention,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  the  general  causes  and  necessities  for  a  sepa- 
rate organization  should  be  discussed  any  longer. — unless  some 
members  from  the  border  Conferences  should  think  it  neces- 
sary to  do  .so,  in  order  to  represent  their  portion  of  the  Church 
correctly. 

George  W.  Brush,  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  made  a  few 
felicitous  remarks,  and  was  followed  b}^  Hubbard  H.  Kava- 
naugh  of  the  same  Conference,  who  favored  the  Convention 
Avitli  an  excellent  speech.  Thomas  Stringfield,  of  the  Holstou 
Conference,  made  a  few  remarks,  and  was  succeeded  by 
William  Patton  and  Andrew  Monroe,  of  the  Missouri  Confer- 
ence, and  William  Gunn  of  the  Kentucky  Conference.  On 
motion  of  Fountain  E.  Pitts,  of  the  Tennessee  Conference,  tlife^ 
session  was  extended  fifteen  minutes,  in  favot  of  the  last 
speaker,  who  concluded  before  the  time  expired,  and  John  C. 
Harrison,  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  followed  and  spokt- 
beyond  the  hour  of  adjournment,  which  took  place  with  the 
benediction  by  the  Bishop. 


184  ^       HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

WEDNESDAY^^MORNING,  MAY  14. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Soule  in  the  chair.  The  usual 
reUgious  exercises  were  conducted  by  Hezekiah  G.  Leigh,  of 
the  North  Carolina  Conference.  The  Minutes  were  read  and 
approved. 

The  Committee  on  Finance  made  their  report,  which,  on 
motion  of  Hezekiah  G.  Leigh,  was  laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Leroy  M.  Lee,  the  Report  was  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  the  Publication  Committee  were 
instructed  not  to  print  it  in  the  newspaper  of  to-morrow. 

The  Committee  on  Missions  made  their  report,  which,  on 
motion  of  the  chairman  of  said  committee,  was  laid  on  the 
table. 

A  Petition  from  Nashville,  Tennessee,  praying  the  establish- 
irient  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  the  holding  of  the  first  Southern 
General  Conference  in  that  city,  was  presented  by  Messrs. 
McFerrin,  Harris,  Hanner,  and  Pitts;  it  was  read  and  referred 
to  the  appropriate  committee. 

On  motion  of  .John  Early,  the  resolution  of  .Tames  E.  Evans 
was  taken  up;  whereupon,  Fountain  E.  Pitts,  of  the  Tennessee 
Conference,  occupied  half  an  hour  in  a  speech.  He  was  fol- 
lowed by  Moses  Brock,  of  the  Memphis  Conference,  who  paved 
the  way  for  William  McMahon,  of  the  same  Conference,  who 
entertained  the  Convention  for  half  an  hour.  He  was  followed 
l)y  William  Gunn  and  Benjamin  T.  Crouch  of  the  Kentucky 
Conference,  William  A.  Smith,  of  the  Virginia  Conference, 
( leorge  W.  D.  Harris  of  the  Memphis  Conference,  and  Thomas 
Jv.  Catlett,  of  the  Holston  Conference. 

The  resolution  of  James  E.  Evans  was  then  withdrawn. 

The  resolution  of  Dr.  Smith  was  then  taken  up,  and  after  a 
few  remarks  in  its  support  by  Joseph  Boyle  and  Jesse  Green, 
of  the  Missouii  Conference,  and  Littleton  Fowler,  of  the 
Texas  Conference,  was  adopted,  with  one  dissenting  vote. 

On  motion  of  Hezekiah  G.  Leigh,  the  Convention  then  ad- 
journed, with  the  benediction  by  the  Bishop. 

THURSDAY  MORNING,  MAY  15. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  The  usual 
devotions  were  conducted  by  Jonathan  Stamper,  of  the  Illinois 
Conference.     The  Minutes  w^ere  read  and  approved. 

A  memorial  from  the  Mayor  and  City  Council,  one  from 
upwards  of  250  citizens,  and  another  from  51  lawyers,  of  the 
city  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  praying  for  the  location  of  the  Book 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  185 

Concern  and  newspaper  in  said  city,  were  presented  by  George 
W.  Brush,  of  the  Kentucky  Conference;  read  and  referred  T(* 
the  appropriate  committee. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith,  the  Convention  resolved 
itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  take  ufider  considera- 
tion the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Missions. 

In  about  an  hour,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  rose,  and, 
the  Convention  being  resui;ned,  the  chairman  reported  that  the 
committee  had,  according  to  order,  had  under  consideration 
the  report  in  question,  and  had  made  progress  therein;  but  not 
having  time  to  go  through  the  same,  had  directed  him  to  ask 
leave  to  sit  again.  On  motion  of  Tiiomas  Crovvder,  of  the; 
Virginia  Conference,  the  request  was  granted. 

It  was  then  announced  that  the  Committee  on  Organization 
were  prepared  to  make  their  report.  Nearly  two  hours  wer(^ 
occupied  by  Dr.  Bascom,  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  in 
reading  that  elaborate  document. 

On  motion  of  Drs.  William  A.  Smith  and  William  Capers, 
the  report  was  accepted,  and  the  Publishing  Committee  were 
instructed  to  print  one  hundred  copies  for  the  use  of  the  con- 
vention. 

Dr.  Winans  was  excused  from  serving  on  the  Book  Con- 
cern, and,  on  his  motion,  Alexander  L.  P.  Green  was  chosen 
to  fill  his  place. 

Dr.  Paine  was  excused  from  serving  on  the  Committee  on 
Education.     George  F.  Pierce  was  chosen  in  his  place. 

On  motion  of  Leroy  M.  Lee,  the  Convention  then  adjourned, 
with  the  benediction  by  the  Bishop. 


FRIDAY  MORNING,  MAY  16. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Soule  in  the  chair.  The  usual 
devotions  were  conducted  by  Jefferson  Hamilton,  of  the  Ala- 
bama Conference.     The  Minutes  were  read  an  approved. 

On  motion  of  Samuel  S.  Bryant,  of  the  North  Carolina,  and 
Thomas  Crowder,  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  the  Convention 
resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  take  under 
further  consideration  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Misfsions. 
John  James,  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  was  called  to  the 
chair. 

At  12  o'clock  the  committee  rose,  and,  the  Convention  being 
resumed,  the  chairman  presented  the  report  of  the  committee; 
which,  on  motion,  was  laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Leroy  M.  Lee,  the  Convention  then  adjourned, 
with  the  benediction  by  the  Bishop. 

16* 


18G  HISTORY   OP   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

SATURDAY  MORNING,  MAY  17. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  Religious 
exercises  were  conducted  by  Joshua  Boucher,  of  the  Tennes- 
see Conference.     The  Minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

A  communication  from  certain  persons  in  Frankfort,  Ken- 
tucky, praying  for  the  location  of  a  newspaper  in  said  city, 
was  presented  by  Dr.  Bascom,  and,  on  motion  of  Dr.  Capers, 
](*ferred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Book  Concern  and  Periodicals. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  the 
rc^port  of  the  Committee  on  Organization  was  taken  up,  and 
\.\iv,  Convention  resolved  to  act  on  it  hy  ijeas  and  ?zaj/5— sick  and 
absent  members  being  permitted  to  enter  their  votes  at  some 
subsequent  period  during  the  session. 

The  first  resolution  was  read,  and,  on  motion  of  John  Early, 
was  adopted,  as  follows: — 

Be  it  resolved,  hy  the  Delegates  of  the  scverad  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  tJie  Slaveholding  States, 
in  General  Convention  assembled,  That  it  is  right,  expedient, 
and  necessa.ry  to  erect  the  Annual  Conferences  rejiresentcd  in 
this  Convention,  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion, 
separate  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at  present  constituted; 
and  accordingly,  we,  the  delegates  of  said  Annual  Conferences, 
acting  under  the  provisional  plan  of  separation  adopted  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  do  solemnly  r7cc7«/r  the  juris- 
diction hitherto  exercised  over  said  Annual  Conferences,  by 
tlie  General  Conference  of  the  jMcthodist  Episcopal  Church, 
cntirelij  dissolved;  and  that  said  Annual  Conferences  shall  be, 
and  they  hereby  arc  constituted,  a  separate  ecclesiastical  con- 
nexion, under  the  provisional  plan  of  separation  aforesaid, 
and  based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  comprehending  the  doctrines  and  entire  moral,  eccle- 
siastical, and  economical  rules  and  regulations  of  said  Discip- 
line, except  only,  in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  may  })e  ne- 
cessary to  a  distinct  organization,  and  to  be  known  by  the  style 
and  title  of  the  Methouist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Yeas. — Henry  B.  Bascom,  Edward  Stevenson,  Hubbard  H. 
Kavanaugh,  Benjamin  T.  Crouch,  George  W.  Brush,  Burr  H. 
Mc('own,  James  King,  John  James,  Thomas  N.  Ralston, 
Andrew  Monroe,  Jesse  Green,  John  Glanvillc,  Wesley  Brown- 
ing, William  Patton,  John  H.  Linn,  Joseph  Boyle,  Thomas 
Johnson,  Thomas  K.  Catlett,  Thomas  Stringfield,  Rufus  M. 
Scevens,  Timothy  Sullins,  Creed  Fulton,  Robert  Paine,  John  B. 
McFerrin,  Alexander  L.  P.  Green,  Fountain  E.  Pitts,  Ambrose 
F.  Diiskillj  John  W.  llanncr,  Joshua  Boucher,  Thomas  Maddin, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  187 

Frederick  G.  Ferguson,  Robert  L.  Andrews,  Samuel  S.  Bryant, 
Hezekiah  G.  Leigh,  Bennet  T.  Blake,  Robert  J.  Carson,  Peter 
Doub,  John  T.  Brame,  Moses  Brock,  George  W.  D.  Harris, 
AVm.  McMahon,  Thomas  Joyner,  Asbury  Davidson,  Wilson  L. 
McAlister,  Thomas  Smith,  John  Ilarrell,  John  F.  Truslow, 
Jacob  Custer,  John  Early,  Thomas  Crowder,  William  A.  Smith, 
Leroy  M.  Lee,  Abraham  Penn,  David  S.  Doggett,  Henry  B. 
Cowles,  Anthony  Dibrell,  Lewell  Campbell,  John  G.  Jones, 
Green  M.  Rogers,  Benjamin  M.  Drake,  Samuel  W.  Speer, 
Wilham  H.  Watkins,  William  Winans,  Littleton  Fowler, 
Francis  Wilson,  Robe'rt  Alexander,  Jefferson  Hamilton,  Jesse 
Boring,  Thomas  H.  Capers,  Eugene  V.  Levert,  Elisha  Cal- 
loway, Thomas  O.  Summers,  Greenbury  Garrett,  Lovick 
Pierce,  James  E.  Evans,  John  W.  Glenn,  Samuel  Anthony, 
Augustus  B.  Long-street,  Isaac  Boring,  James  B.  Payne,  George 
F.  Pierce,  Thomas  Samford,  William  Capers,  William  M. 
Wightman,  Plugh  A.  C.  W^alker,  Samuel  Dunwody,  Bond 
English,  Samuel  W.  Capers,  Whiteford  Smith,  Robert  J.  Boyd, 
Peyton  P.  Smith,  Thomas  C.  Benning,  Edward  T.  Peery, 
David  B.  Cumming — 94. 

?v'^AYs — William  Gunn,  George  W.  Taylor,  John  C.  Harri- 
son—3. 

The  second  resolution  ^vas  then  read,  and  on  motion  of 
Thomas  Crowder,  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  adopted,  a,s 
follows: — 

Resolved,  That  we  cannot  abandon  or  compromise  the  prin- 
ciples of  action,  upon  which  we  proceed  to  a  separate  or- 
ganization in  the  South;  nevertheless,  cherishing  a  sincere 
desire  to  maintain  Christian  union  and  fraternal  intercourse 
with  the  Church  North,  we  shall  always  be  ready,  kindly  and 
respectfully,  to  entertain,  and  duly  and  carefully  consider,  any 
proposition  or  plan,  having  for  its  object  the  union  of  the  two 
great  bodies,  in  the  North  and  South,  whether  such  proposed 
union  be  Jurisdictional  or  conncctional . 

Yeas. — Bascom,  Stevenson,  Kavanaugh,  Crouch,  Gunn, 
Taylor,  Brush,  Harrison,  McCown,  King,  James,  Ralston, 
Monroe,  J.  Green,  Glanville,  Browning,  Patton,  Linn,  Boyle, 
Johnson,  Catlett,  Stringlield,  Stevens,  Sullins,  Fulton,  Paine, 
McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  Pitts,  Driskill,  Hanner,  Boucher, 
Maddin,  Ferguson,  Andrews,  Bryant,  Leigh,  Blake,  Carson, 
Doub,  Brame,  Brock,  Harris,  McMahon,  Joyner,  Davidson, 
jMcAlister,  T.  Smith,  Havrell,  Truslow,  Custer,  Early,  Crowded, 
W.  A.  Smith,  Lee,  Penn,  Doggett,  Cowles,  Dibrell,  Campbell, 
Jones,  Rogers,  Drake,  Speer,  Watkins,  Winans,  Fowler,  Wil- 
•^on,  Alexander,  Hamilton,  Boring,  T.  H.  Capers,  Levert,  Cal- 
loway, Summers,  Garrett,  L.  Pierce,  Evans,   Glenn,  Anthony, 


188  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

Lonf^street,  Boring,  Payne,  G.  F.  Pierce,  Samford,  W.  Capers, 
Wightman,  Walker,  Dunwody,  English,  S.  W.  Capers,  W. 
Smith,  Boyd,  P.  P.  Smith,  Benning,  Peery,  Cumming — 97. 
xVays — None. 

The  Committee  on  Organization  then  presented  an  addi- 
tional report,  which  was  amended  and  adopted,  in  the  follow- 
ing form: — 

1.  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  request  the  Bishops,  pre- 
siding at  the  ensuing  session  of  the  border  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  incorporate  into  the 
aforesaid  Conferences  any  societies  or  stations  adjoining  the 
line  of  division,  provided  such  societies  or  stations,  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  members,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  plan 
of  separation  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference,  re- 
quest such  an  arrangement. 

2.  Resolved,  That  answer  2d  of  3d  section,  chapter  1st  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  be  so  altered  and  amended  as  to  read  cis 
follows: — 

"  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of 
May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  184G,  in  the  town  of  Petersburg, 
Virginia,  and  thenceforward  in  the  month  of  April  or  May, 
once  in  four  years  successively,  and  in  such  place  and  on 
such  day  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  preceding  General  Confer- 
ence, &c." 

3.  Resolved  further,  That  the  first  answer  in  the  same  chap- 
ter be  altered  by  striking  out  the  word  "  twenty-one,^''  and  in- 
serting in  its  place  fourteen. 

Yeas. — Bascom,  Stevenson,  Kavanaugh,  Crouch,  Gunn, 
Taylor,  Brush,  Harrison,  McCown,  King,  James,  Ralston, 
Monroe,  J.  Green,  Glanville,  Browning,  Patton,  Linn,  Boyle, 
Johnson,  Catlett,  Stringficld,  Stevens,  Sullins,  Fulton,  Paine, 
McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  Pitts,  Driskill,  Manner,  Boucher, 
Maddin,  Ferguson,  Andrews,  Bryant,  Leigh,  Blake,  Carson, 
Doub,  Brame,  Brock,  Harris,  McMahon,  Joyner,  Davidson, 
McAlister,  T.  Smith,  Harrell,  Truslow,  Custer,  Early,  Crovvder, 
W.  A.  Smith,  Lee,  Penn,  Doggett,  Cowles,  Dibrell,  Campbell, 
Jones,  Rogers,  Drake,  Speer,  Watkins,  Winans,  Fowler,  Wil- 
son, Alexander,  Hamilton,  Boring,  T.  H.  Capers,  Levert,  Cal- 
loway, Summers,  Garrett,  L.  Pierce,  Evans,  Glenn,  Anthony, 
Longstreet,  J.  Boring,  Payne,  G.  F.  Pierce,  Samford,  W.  Ca- 
pers, Wightman,  Walker,  Dunwody,  English,  vS.  W.  Capers; 
Smith,  Boyd,  P.  P.  Smith,  Thomas  C.  Benning,  Peery,  Cum- 
ming— 97. 

Nays. — None. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  was  then  taken 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHUECII,    SOUTH,  189 

up,  and,   on  motion   of  Dr.  William  Capers,   the  following 
resolution  was  adopted  as  a  substitute: — 

Resolved,  That  it  appears  not  to  be  necessary  at  present  to 
appoint  commissioners  or  agents,  as  provided  for  in  the  plan  of 
separation  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference.  Never- 
theless, we  recommend  the  same  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  proper  to  be 
done,  so  soon  as  it  can  be  with  effect. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Missions,  as  amended  by 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  was  then  taken  up,  and,  with 
the  accompanying  letter,  adopted,  as  follows: — 

The  committee  to  whom  w^as  referred  the  subject  of  provi- 
ding for  the  management  and  support  of  Missions,  respectfully 
report, 

That  in  view  of  the  present  aspect  of  our  missionary  fields, 
and  our  position  in  relation  to  them,  the  whole  subject  re- 
ferred— always  interesting  and  important — becomes  eminent- 
1}^  vital  and  essential.  And  your  committee,  having  passed  in 
review  the  condition  and  prospects  of  the  several  missions 
belonging  to  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church,  and  exam- 
ined wHth  due  deliberation  and  intense  solicitude  the  questions 
w^hich  have  arisen  as  to  the  means  of  supporting  them,  have 
arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that,  though  in  other  circumstances 
it  should  seem  plausible  to  change  materially  our  system  of 
finance,  it  is  best  for  the  present  to  introduce  no  changes  but 
such  as  are  necessary  to  conform  our  missionary  system  to  our 
Church  organization.  And  we  deem  it  to  be  reason  enough 
for  this  conclusion,  that  even  changes  which  might  prove  ad- 
vantageous after  they  had  become  familiar  to  the  numerous 
persons  to  be  moved  by  them,  \vould,  at  their  introduction,  be 
less  productive  for  the  w^ant  of  familiarty,  and  the  present 
juncture  imperatively  requires  a  plan  for  immediate  production. 

Your  committee,  therefore,  do  respectfully  offer  the  follow- 
ing resolutions,  as  specifying  w^hat  is  requisite  to  be  done  at 
the  present  time,  and  as  comprehending,  in  connection  with 
what  is  provided  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  all  which  appears 
to  them  suitable  in  our  circumstances. 

1.  Resolved,  That  until  a  General  Conference  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  represented  in  this  Convention,  shall  have  ordered 
otherwise,  the  Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  shall  be  regarded  as  the 
central  or  parent  society  for  said  Conferences,- — ^said  society 
having  previously  changed  its  title,  and  adopted  a  constitution 
agreebly  to  the  purport  of  these  resolutions. 

2.  That  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  central  society  afore- 
said, shall  appoint  two  assistant  Treasurers — of  whom  one 


19®  HISTORY  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

shall  be  resident  in  the  city  of  Charleston,  and  the  other  in 
the  city  of  New  Orleans,  to  whom  monies  designed  for  the 
General  Treasury  may  be  remitted;  and  who  shall  make 
quarterly  exhibits 'to  the  Treasurer  at  Louisville,  of  their  re- 
ceipts and  disbursements,  severally. 

8.  That  the  Board  of  Managers  of  each  Annual  Confer- 
ence, auxiliary,  supply  the  demands  of  the  Missions  of  its 
Annual  Conference,  as  far  as  it  can  be  done,  notifying  the 
Bishop  or  President  of  the  Conference,  of  any  deficiency  for 
which  he  may  draw  on  the  General  Treasurer  at  Louisville,  or 
on  one  of  the  assistant  Treasurers  at  Charleston  or  New  Or- 
leans. And  in  case  there  be  a  surplus  with  any  of  the  Con- 
ference Societies,  the  Treasurer  of  such  society  shall  forthwith 
transmit  it  to  the  General  Treasurer,  or  one  of  the  assistant 
Treasurers. 

4.  That  the  Bishops  be  requested  to  aid  the  central  Board 
with  their  counsel,  as  to  the  appropriation  of  the  funds;  and 
that  the  brethren,  Alexander  L.  P.  Green,  Jerome  C.  Berry- 
man,  Benjamin  M.  Drake,  Littleton  Fowler,  William  Capers, 
and  Hubbard  IL  Kavanaugh,  be  a  committee  for  the  same 
purpose. 

5.  That  the  missions  connected  with  the  Southern  division  of 
the  Church  jnvst  be  sustained,  and,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  sliall 
be;  and  that  this  may  be  done  with  greater  facility,  it  is  en- 
joined on  all  missionaries  to  make  quarterly  reports  of  the 
work  in  their  missions  through  one  of  our  Church  papers. 

And  your  committee  beg  leave  further  to  offer  the  accompa- 
nying Letter,  which  they  respectfully  propose  to  be  adopted 
as  your  own. 

The  Southern  and  South-western  Annual  Conferences  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  assembled  by  their  delegates 
in  Convention,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  to  the  ministers 
constituting  said  Conferences,  and  to  all  the  brethren,  greeting: 

Previously  to  the  receipt  of  this,  beloved  brethren,  you  will 
have  understood,  that  the  Convention,  whose  letter  this  is,  has 
carried  into  effect  the  object  of  its  appointment,  by  forming 
our  sixteen  Annual  Conferences  (to  wit,  Missouri,  Kentucky, 
Virginia,  llolston,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 
Tennessee,  Memphis,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Arkansas,  Florida, 
East  Texas,  West  Texas,  and  the  Indian  Mission  Conference) 
into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  agreeably  to  the  provi- 
sion of  the  late  General  Conference.  By  this  act,  the  relation 
which  has  hitherto  existed  between  our  Indian  missions,  the  mis- 
sions in  Texas,  our  domestic  missions,  (or  missions  to  the  people 
of  color,)  and  those  to  the  German  immigrants  within  our  bounds, 
is  necessarily  changed,  both  for  themanagement  of  them,  and 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  191 

their  support.  A  great  and  weighty  responsibilty  has  thus 
been  devolved  on  us — on  you.  And  we  would  not  disguse, 
but  freely  unbosom  to  you,  brethren  beloved,  how  deep  a 
solicitude  we  have  felt  that  m'c  all  may  approve  ourselves  as 
the  servants  of  Christ  in  this  matter,  and  make  it  manifest 
with  how  simple  and  sincere  a  desire  we  have  been  moved  in 
all  that  we  have  done,  that  God  may  be  glorihcd. 

The  first  hint  afforded  in  the  Jloly  Scriptures  of  the  expe- 
diency of  adopting  a  separation  of  jurisdiction  as  a  remedy 
for  unmanageable  differences  in  the  Church,  and  to  keep  the 
ministry  to  their  holy  work  of  preaching  Christ,  without  dis- 
tracting controversies,  (Gal.  ii,  1-10,)  is  accompanied  with  an 
express  stipulation  on  behalf  of  the  poor.  That  Scripture  act  of 
separation,  or  division,  was  the  work  of  the  Apostles,  moved, 
no  doubt,  by  the  Spirit  of  God;  and  in  circumstances  by  no 
means  dissimilar,  it  behooves  us  to  practice  the  lesson  which  it  in- 
culcates, by  devising  liberal  things. 

And  how  numerous  are  the  poor  Avho  must  be  destitute  of 
the  gospel  without  our  ministry.  Consider  the  many  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  the  African  race,  who,  though  dwelling  in 
our  midst,  cannot  be  served  by  the  circuit  appointments — Ger- 
man immigrants — the  thousands  of  families  scattered  over  the 
least  favored  parts  of  Florida  and  Arkansas,  (where  it  is  com- 
puted that  the  ministry  cannot  be  sustained  in  the  ratio  of  one 
to  every  fifty  miles  square) — East  and  West  Texas — the  tribes 
of  Indians  included  in  our  Mission  Conference — and  the  vast 
range  of  the  farther  tribes,  from  the  borders  of  Mexico  to  the 
Rocky  Mountains.  How  wide  is  the  field!  And  what  a  call 
is  this,  of  so  many  kindreds,  colors,  and  conditions  of  men,  in 
our  national  territory,  crying  to  us  for  the  gospel  of  Christ? 
This  gospel  they  must  have.  The  negro  in  his  bonds — our 
citizen  people  in  their  far-off  homes — the  strangers  among  us 
from  a  foreign  land — the  Indian  in  the  wilderness,  whither  he 
has  retreated  that  we  might  possess  his  lands  and  become 
great  in  the  earth — they  must  have  the  gospel.  They  all  must 
have  it,  and  we  must  give  it  to  them.  We  have  meant  this, 
all  this,  and  nothing  but  this,  in  all  that  we  have  done.  We 
feel  that  our  action  in  this  Convention  pledges  us  anew  for 
the  maintenance  of  that  great  motive  principle  of  Methodism, 
that  the  gospel  must  be  preached,  with  all  our  might,  to  as 
many  as  Ave  can,  and  at  all  hazards.  And  your  action,  brethren, 
without  which  ours  might  not  have  been  attempted,  pledges 
you  to  sustain  us  to  the  utmost  of  your  power.  Nor  can  we 
in  the  least  distrust  you,  but  rest  satisfied  that  our  confidence 
in  you  will  never  be  put  to  shame.  You  will  suffer  no  good 
work  which  has  been  begun  to  stop  at  its  beginning,  and 
nothing  in  progress  to  be  put  back,  on  account  of  its  becoming 


192  UISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

connected  with  a  Southern  General  Conference  or  a  Southern 
Missionary  Society.  And  satisfied  we  are,  that  no  harm  need 
happen  in  any  quarter,  from  the  present  posture  of  affairs,  if 
you,  brethren,  will  unite  with  us  as  one  man  in  a  hearty  reso- 
lution that  by  God's  help,  thci-c  shall  no  harm  happen.  Indeed, 
we  see  not  but  instead  of  harm,  (to  the  general  cause  at  least) 
much  good  may  result.  The  very  act  which  removes  us  from 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  General  Conference  like  the  last, 
removes  out  of  the  way  the  chief  hindrance  to  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel  to  the  colored  population,  it  must  operate  fa- 
vorably on  the  public  mind  in  Texas  also;  and  yet  more  among 
the  Indians.  We  hope,  indeed,  that  it  Mill  prove  a  means  of 
recovering  the  ground  so  unhappily  lost  in  the  Creek  Nation, 
partly  by  abolition  intermeddling,  some  years  ago. 

AVhether  we  direct  our  attention  then  to  our  colored  popu- 
lation, or  to  the  German  immigrants,  or  to  the  least  favored 
parts  of  the  States  of  Arkansas  and  Florida,  or  to  Texas,  or 
to  the  Indian  Mission  Conference,  "  a  great  door  and  effectuaf 
is  opened  to  us,  and  every  Christian  consideration  urges  that 
we  enter  and  occupy  in  our  Master's  name.  We  would,  espe- 
cially at  the  present  juncture,  have  you  consider  how  great 
the  work  is  which  has  been  devolved  to  us  in  the  Indian  Con- 
ference; as  it  is  probable  that  you  are  less  acquainted  with  it, 
both  as  to  its  extent  and  cost,  than  with  other  portions  of  the 
missionary  field  which  lie  nearer  to  you.  Besides  teachers  and 
others  not  exclusively  employed  as  preachers  of  the  gospel, 
we  have  twenty  white  missionaries  and  twelve  Indian  preach- 
ers, (of  whom  seven  are  regular  itinerants,)  and  about  four 
thousand  Church  members,  among  some  twenty  tribes  of  In- 
dians, of  w^hom  the  Chcrokees,  Choctaws,  Chicasaws,  Creeks, 
Seminoles,  Senecas,  Quapaws,  Osages,  Kansas,  Potwattamies, 
Chippeways,  Otawa,  Peoria,  Miami,  Shawnees,  Kickapoos, 
Delawares,  and  Wyandotts,  are  the  principal.  Their  num- 
bers are  about  90,000,  and  there  are  some  20,000  negroes 
(slaves)  among  them.  We  have  also  four  schools,  at  which 
nearly  three  hundred  children,  of  both  sexes,  are  taught  the 
rudiments  of  English  education,  and  some  knowledge  of  the 
mechanic  arts,  agriculture,  and  housewifery.  And  these 
schools  are  so  situated  that  children  belonging  to  some  twenty 
ta-ibes  partake  of  the  benefit.  These  tribes  are  rapidly  ad- 
vancing to  a  degree  of  civilization;  and  ours  is  the  responsi- 
ble and  interesting  olRce  of  serving  as  their  guides.  Shall 
their  advancement  be  accompanied  with  the  lights  of  virtue 
and  religion,  or  left  to  the  misguiding  influences  of  vice  and 
infidelity?     W  ho  can  hesitate? 

<)f  how  much  value  the  Indians  themselves  regard  the 
schools,  may   be  inferred   from  the  fact  that  the  expense  of 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  19,3 

maintaining-  them  is  shared  with  us  by  appropriations  volunta- 
rily made  out  of  their  annuities.  The  cost  we  incur  is  about 
eight  thousand  dollars,  and  for  the  regular  work  about  twelve 
thousand  more.  Add  to  this  an  equal  sum  for  mis.sionsto  the 
slaves  in  our  own  States,  some  eight  thousand  dollars  for  the 
German  missions,  half  as  much  to  assist  the  work  in  the 
weaker  parts  of  Arkansas  and  Florida,  and  five  thousand  dol- 
lars to  East  and  West  Texas,  and  you  have  w  hat  is  considered 
a  moderate  estimate  of  the  annual  cost  of  the  missions  which 
now  depend  on  us  for  support.  Will  you  not  furnish  it?  What 
is  the  sum  of  fifty  or  even  sixty  thousand  dollars  to  a  member- 
ship of  near  half  a  million,  having  a  willing  mind. 

We  have  considered  with  careful  deliberation,  what  system 
might  prove  most  convenient  for  collecting  your  liberality,  and 
have  concluded  that  it  is  best,  at  least  for  the  present,  to  adopt 
no  changes,  farther  than  is  necessary  to  conform  to  our  Church 
organization.  If,  however,  any  should  think  our  system  de- 
fective, we  would  exhort  such  to  supply  the  deficiency  by 
greater  diligence.  We  cannot  at  present  risk  an  experiment. 
There  must  be  no  delay.  The  central  society  will  lose  no  time 
to  organize  on  the  plan  adopted,  and  elect  a  General  Treasu- 
rer, to  reside  at  Louisville,  and  Assistant  Treasurers  at  Carles- 
ton  and  New  Orleans.  Meanwhile,  the  preachers,  every 
where  within  our  bounds,  should  be  actively  employed  in  pro- 
curing contributions.  We  repeat,  there  must  be  no  delay,  no 
holding  back,  no  waiting  for  one  another,  no  postponing  the 
matter  to  a  convenient  season.  We  desire  that  every  one 
should  receive  this  letter  as  summoning  him  to  begin,  not  by 
and  by,  not  to-morrow,  not  the  next  hour,  but  with  tht>  paper 
in  his  hand.  Read  it  to  those  about  you — in  the  societies — 
in  the  congregations;  and  add  what  shall  strike  you  to  pro- 
mote the  cause.  And  may  God,  whom  we  serve  in  the  gospel 
of  his  Son,  send  now  prosperit)^ 

Signed  in  behalf  of  the  Convention. 

James  O.  Andrew,  Pres't. 

Thomas  O.  Summers,  Sec'y. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

May  14th,  1845.  William  Capers,  Ch'n. 

On  motion  of  Thomas  Crowder,  the  thanks  of  the  Conven- 
tion, by  a  rising  vote,  were  given  to  the  citizens  of  Louisville, 
for  defraying  the  expenses  incurred  by  Bishops  Soule  and  An- 
drew in  attending  the  Convention,  and  by  printing  and  other 
incidentals  incurred  during  the  session. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  the  Convention  adjourfted  to 
meet  again  this  afternoon  at  3  o'clock, — Bishop  Andrew  pro- 
nouncing the  benediction. 

17 


194  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

SATURDAY  AFTERNOON,,  MAY  17. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Andrew  in  the  chair.  Opened 
■with  prayer  by  Francis  Wilson,  of  the  Texas  Conference. — • 
Th':'  Minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

The  Committee  on  Finance  reported  the  following  resolu- 
tion, which,  on  motion  of  Dr.  WilHam  Capers,  was  adopted: — 

Resolved ^  That  the  family  expenses  of  the  Bishops  be  equally 
divided  among  the  fifteen  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  paid  in  the  same  manner 
that  their  quarterage  and  traveling  expenses  are  now  paid. 

John  Early,  Ch'n. 

The  Committee  on  Education  then  made  their  report,  which 
w.'i.s  accepted,  and  the  following  resolution  adopted: — ■ 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention  recommend  to  tlie  several 
Annual  Conferences  here  represented,  at  their  next  session,  to 
collect  all  the  material  facts  connected  with  the  Institutions  of 
learning  under  their  control,  respectively,  and  forward  the 
same  by  their  delegates  to  the  next  General  Conference. 

George  F.  Pierce,  Ch'n. 

report  of  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  BOOK  CONCERN  AND  PERIODICALS. 

The  coinmittee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  a  Book 
T'oncern  and  Periodicals,  after  tiddng  the  subject  into  con- 
sideration, beg  leave  to  report, — 

Your  committee  take  great  pleasure  in  saying  to  this  Con- 
vention, that  quite  a  number  of  meinorials  and  petitions,  to- 
gether witli  kind  and  liberal  oflers  of  pecuniary  aid,  have 
come  into  our  hands.  From  the  city  of  Memphis  we  have 
received  a  very  flattering  proposal,' consisting  in  a  large  brick 
building,  formerly  occupied  as  a  Tavern,  which  is  said  to  have 
cost  some  i^'30,000,  (tliough  its  present  value  we  would  not 
not  attempt  to  estimate)  together  with  the  expressed  wish  and 
dosire  of  a  large  number  of  the  citizens  of  the  city  and  neigh- 
borhood, that  our  contemplated  Book  Concern  should  be  loca- 
tc^l  at  that  place;  pledging  themselves  to  aid  and  assist  the 
enterprise  to  the  utmost  of  their  ability. 

We  have  also  received  several  petitions  from  the  citizens  of 
this  city  (Louisville)  praying  its  location  here,  setting  forth  the 
claims  of  this  place  to  your  consideration,  and  farther  assuring 
us  that  should  the  Book  Concern  be  established  here,  that  a 
considerable  amount  of  funds  can  and  -will  be  raised  in  aid  of 
such  establishment.  We  have  also  been  favored  with  a  me- 
jiiorial*  from  the  city  of  IVashville,  setting  forth  the  claims  of 
tliat  city  as  every  way  suitable  for  such  an  establishment. 
hi.  Louis,  also,  has  been  presented  to  your  committee  as  anx- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  105 

ious  for  the  location  of  said  Concern  there,  and  as  in  every 
Avay  eligible  for  the  same.  While  your  committee  are  of  the 
opinion  that  any  one  of  the  abovcmentioned  cities  are  worthy 
of  such  an  establishment,  and  rejoice  to  learn  that  our  friends 
in  the  South  feel  so  deep  an  interest  in  this  great  auxiliary  in 
l)romoting  the  cause  of  God  and  the  best  interests  of  man- 
kind; yet  it  is  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  that  as  there 
Avill  be  a  General  Conference  of  the  JMethodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  in  Petersburg,  next  May — vested  with  fall  power- 
to  establish  a  Book  Concern,  and  as  further  developments  may 
yet  be  made  with  respect  to  the  most  eligible  point  within 
our  bounds  to  locate  such  an  establishment; 

1.  Resolved,  therefore.  That  while  we  consider  a  Book  Con- 
cern as  indispensable  to  the  prosperity  of  the  J'.iethodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  yet  we  deem  the  establishment  of  one  at. 
this  time  premature;  nevertheless,  we  recommend  the  appoint- 
ment of  two  Book  Agents,  whose  duty  shall  be  to  receive  propo- 
sitions for  the  location  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  also  receive 
moneys  and  contributions  for  building  up  the  same,  and  report 
to  the  General  Conference  to  be  held  at  Petersburg  next  May. 

2.  Resolved,  That  ^ve  recommend  to  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  continue  for 
the  present  to  patronize  the  Book  Concerns  at  New  York  and 
Cincinnati. 

3.  Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  our  friends,  generally, 
that  they  patronize  our  Periodicals,  viz:  South- Western  Chris- 
tian Advocate,  Southern  Christian  Advocate,  and  Richmond 
Christian  Advocate,  as  every  way  worthy  of  our  support. 

A.  L.  P.  C:iREEN,  Ch'n. 

John  Early,  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  and  John  B.  Mc- 
Ferrin,  of  the  Tennessee  Conference,  were  unanimously 
elected  the  Book  Agents  provided  for  in  the  first  resolution  of 
the  foregoing  report. 

A  communication  from  James  P.  Shaffner,  was  received  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Book  Concern  and  Periodicals. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  the  Convention  adjourned,  with 
the  benediction  by  the  Bishop. 

MONDAY  MORNING,  MAY  19. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Soule  in  the  chair.  The  usual 
devotions  were  conducted  by  Jacob  Custer  of  the  Arkansas 
Conference.     The  Minutes  "vvere  read  and  approved. 

John  Harrell,  of  the  Arkansas  Conference,  and  Robert 
Paine,  of  the  Tennessee  Conference,  obtained  leave  to  go 
home,  when  they  may  find  it  necessary. 


196  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OP  THE 

The  Book  Concern  and  Periodical  Committee  made  an  ad- 
ditional report,  which  was  adopted,  as  follows: — 

The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  request  of  J.  P. 
ShafFner,  Esq.,  which  contemplates  the  getting  up  of  a  publi- 
cation of  the  acts  of  this  Convention,  together  with  the 
speeches  which  have  been  delivered  on  the  occasion,  having 
taken  the  subject  into  consideration,  beg  leave  to  submit  to 
tlie  Convention  their  views  with  regard  to  this  matter. 

The  great  difficulty  there  is,  at  present,  of  obtaining  a  faith- 
ful and  correct  history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
in  America,  has  no  doubt  often  occurred  to  every  member  of 
this  body,  and  notwithstanding  such  a  work  has  been  attempted, 
yet  it  is  evident  to  every  one,  that  it  is  an  utter  failure.  This 
has  no  doubt  grown  out  of  the  very  nature  of  things,  and 
does  not  necessarily  attach  blame  to  any  one.  Although 
our  fathers  in  the  ministry  were  generally  men  of  sound 
minds  and  enlarged  views,  having  a  correct  knowledge  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  plan  of  salvation  by  faith — men  of  deep 
piety  and  great  usefulness — yet  there  were  but  few  writers 
among  them,  and  even  those  who  might  be  called  ripe  scholars 
and  able  preachers,  far  the  greater  part  have  passed  away, 
leaving  their  names  embalmed  in  the  memory  of  the  Church, 
but  no  manuscripts  with  which  to  enlighten  following  gene- 
rations with  regard  to  the  true  history  of  our  Church;  and 
even  those  of  them  who  wrote  at  all,  confined  themselves 
principally  to  their  own  private  journals  or  sectional  questions. 
No  individual  has  collected  and  kept  together  the  facts  which 
came  up  from  time  to  time  in  our  progress,  so  as  to  furnish  the 
Church  and  the  world  with  anything  like  a  correct  history  of 
Methodism.  All  this  may  be  accounted  for  from  the  following 
facts: — in  the  first  place,  their  fields  of  labor  were  very  ex- 
tensive, and  between  traveling,  preaching  and  pastoral  duties, 
their  time  and  strength  were  taxed  to  their  utmost.  Add  to 
this,  that  for  a  considerable  time  we  had  no  public  journals  of 
our  own,  and  access  to  the  world  through  literary  or  political 
journals  was  very  difficult,  so  that  in  all  probability  much  of 
what  little  was  written  has  been  left  in  the  hands  of  friends  who 
have  neglected  it,  and  it  long  since  has  become  defaced,  and 
being  condemned  as  vi'orthless,  has  passed  away. 

But  we  rejoice  to  be  able  to  say  to  you,  beloved  brethren, 
that  our  situation  is  very  different  from  that  of  our  fathers — 
novj,  almost  every  journal  is  ready  to  throw  open  its  columns 
to  us.  We  have  writers,  and  printers,  and  periodicals,  and 
book-makers  of  our  ovv^n,  and  should  generations  to  come  fail 
to  receive  from  us  a  faithful  account  of  what  we  have  done, 
they  could  not  plead  such  an  apology  for  us,  as  we  have  to 
offer  for  our  fathers,  but  would  be  compelled  to  say  that  we 
wilfully  neglected  a  known  duty. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  11>7 

Your  committee  would  further  state,  that  we  would  not 
attempt  to  disguise  the  fact,  that  the  movements  of  the  jMeth- 
odist  Episcopal  Church,  both  North  and  South,  are  at  this  time 
characterized  by  facts  and  ch-cumstances,  which  will  and 
must  be  referred  to  by  generations  j'et  unborn,  as  an  important 
epoch  in  our  history,  and  will  stand  paramount  among  the  re- 
cords of  our  beloved  Church,  until  the  Trump  of  God  i^Iiall 
awake  the  dead. 

A  failure,  therefore,  on  our  part,  as  a  Convention,  to  furnish 
posterity  with  a  correct  account  of  our  acts  and  doings  in  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to- 
gether with  the  facts  which  led  to  the  establishing  of  the 
same,  w^oLild  be,  in  the  opinion  of  j'our  committee,  a  criminal 
neglect  of  dut}-;  and  your  committee  M^ould  further  state,  that 
they  not  only  consider  this  a  duty  in  view  of  posterity,  but  is 
due  to  the  Church  which  lies  near  our  hearts,  and  to  our  coun- 
try, of  which  we  are  proud,  that  the  truth,  the  2vholc  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth,  should  be  made  public— not  a  matter  ol" 
record  only,  but  also  of  history.  The  necessity  of  this  covu'se 
is  the  more  apparent  at  present,  from  the  fact  that  our  acts 
and  doings,  and  our  words  in  debate,  are  misrepresented,  whih^ 
attempts  have  been  made  to  create  before  the  public  mind 
false  issues. 

Your  committee  believe  further,  ihat  all  the  important  facts 
and  circumstances  connected  with  our  separate  organization, 
can  now  be  obtained,  compiled,  and  put  into  a  state  of  pre- 
servation; but  should  this  Convention  adjourn  without  taking 
some  measure  to  secure  this  o1)ject,  that  it  cannot  be  done  at 
any  future  period  to  the  same  degree  of  perfection;  and  as  we 
do  nothing  in  a  corner,  but  wish  the  Church  and  the  woi'ld  at 
large  to  knov/  what  we  have  done,  and  our  reasons  for  so 
acting;   therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  editor  or  editors  of  the  South-western 
Christian  Advocate,  with  A.  L.  P.  Green,  F.  E.  Pitts,  and  John 
W.  Hanner,  be  appoint(>d  a  committee,  to  be  entitled  the 
Publishing  Committee,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  compile  and 
publish  a  u-ork  or  book,  M'liich  shall  be  called  TJic  Historij  of  the 
Organhationof  the  Mctliodist  EpLscopfd  Church,  South. 

2.  Resolved,  That  said  work  shall  contain  a  fall  account  of  the 
acts  and  doings  of  the  late  General  Conference  of  the  JMethodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  the  cases  of  Rev.  James  Osgood  An- 
drew, one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  the  llev.  F.  A.  Harding  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  to- 
gether with  the  speeches  in  the  abovementioned  cases. 

2.  The  Protest  of  the  minorit}-  against  the  proceedings  of 
the  Conference,  in  the  cases  mentioned  above. 

i7* 


198  HISTORY    OF   THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

3.  The  Declaration  of  the  delegates  from  those  Conferences 
within  the  bounds  of  the  slave-holding  States. 

4.  The  Address  of  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  before  said 
Conference. 

5.  The  Plan  of  Division  by  the  Committee  of  Nine. 

6.  The  Address  of  the  Southern  Delegates  to  the  Church  in 
the  South. 

7.  Action  of  each  and  all  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
bounds  of  the  Southern  Organization,  on  the  subject  of  division, 
or  a  separate  Southern  Organization,  together  with  the  vote 
of  each  Conference  on  their  respective  resolutions. 

8.  The  Address  of  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  before  this 
Convention, — ^the  manuscript  to  be  furnished  by  themselves. 

9.  The  acts  and  doings  of  this  Convention,  together  with 
the  speeches  which  have  been  delivered. 

8.  Resolved  further,  That  the  following  brethren,  members 
of  this  body,  be,  and  they  are  hereby  requested  and  expected 
to  furnish  the  Publishing  Committee,  within  one  month  from 
this  time  (or  date)  a  manuscript  copy  of  their  speeches  before 
this  Convention,  viz: — • 

Drs.  Winans,  Capers  and  Smith,  Rev.  John  Early,  Dr.  Pierce, 
Rev.  G.  F.  Pierce,  Drs.  Longstreet  and  Paine,  Rev.  T.  Crow- 
der,  Rev.  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  Rev.  A.  Monroe,  Rev.  Wm.  Pat- 
ton,  Rev.  Joseph  Boyle,  Rev.  Wm.  McMahon,  Rev.  F.  E.  Pitts, 
Rev.  Wm.  Gunn,  Rev.  J.  C.  Harrison,  and  Rev.  S.  Dunwody. 

The  Committee  of  Publication  shall  also  be  at  liberty  to 
publish  such  other  speeches  as  may  have  been  reported  with 
ijufficfent  correctness  to  justify  their  publication. 

4.  Resolved  further,  That  the  Journals  of  the  Convention, 
with  all  memorials,  petitions,  reports,  and  papers,  be  placed, 
for  the  present,  in  the  hands  of  the  Publishing  Committee,  to 
enable  them  to  compile  the  contemplated  work. 

5.  Resolved,  That  Dr.  William  Capers  and  William  M.Wight- 
man  be  appointed  to  address  a  Circular  Letter,  in  the  form  of 
a  Pastoral  Address,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  said  letter  shall  form  a  portion  of  the  contemplated  work. 

0.  Resolved,  That  should  any  thing  which  is  not  referred  to 
in  tliis  report,  occur  to  the  Publishing  Committee,  which,  in 
their  opinion,  is  of  interest,  and  properly  belonging  to  the  con- 
templated work,  they  shall  be  at  liberty  to  use  such  matter. 

7.  Resolved,  That  the  establishment  of  the  South-western 
Christian  Advocate  shall  incur,  for  the  present,  the  cost  of  pub- 
lication, but  shall  have  the  first  claim  in  the  sale  of  the  Book, 
until  the  money  expended  in  the  publication  is  refunded;  after 
v/hich,  the  profits  of  the  work  shall  belong  to  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South.  All  of  which  is  respectfully 
submitted.  A.  L.  P.  Grern,  Ch"n.    •' 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  199 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Organization  was  then 
taken  up  and  adopted. 

Yeas. — Bascom,  Stevenson,  Kavanaugh,  Crouch,  Gunn, 
Brush,  King,  .Tames,  Ralston,  Monroe,  J.  Green,  Glanville, 
Browning,  Patton,  Linn,  Boyle,  .Tohnson,  Catlett,  Stringfield, 
Stevens,  Sullins,  Fulton,  Paine,  McFerrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  Pitts, 
Driskill,  Manner,  Boucher,  Maddin,  Andrews,  Bryant,  Leigh, 
Blake,  Carson,  Doub,  Brame,  Brock,  Harris,  McHahon,  Joyn- 
er,  Davidson,  McAlister,  Smith,  Truslow,  Custer,  Early,  Crow- 
der,  VV.  A.  Smith,  Lee,  Penn,  Doggett,  Cowles,  Dibrell,  Camp- 
bell, Jones,  Drake,  Watkins,  Winans,  Fowler,  Wilson,  Alex- 
ander, Hamilton,  Boring,  T.  H.  Capers,  Levert,  Calloway, 
Summers,  Garrett,  L.  Pierce,  Evans,  Glenn,  Anthony,  Long- 
street,  J.  Boring,  Payne,  G.  F.  Pierce,  Samford,  W.  Capers, 
Wightman,  Walker,  Dunwody,  English,  S.  W.  Capers,  W. 
Smith,  Boyd,  P.  P.  Smith,  Benning,  Peery,  Cumming — 90. 

Nays. — Taylor  and  Harrison— 2. 

Absent. — McCown,  Ferguson,  Harrell,  Rogers,  Speer — 5. 

The  Committee  on  Organization  then  made  an  additional 
report,  as  follows: — 

The  Committee  on  Organization  beg  respectfully  to  report 
the  following  resolutions  for  adoption  by  the  Convention: 

1.  Resolved,  That  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  be,  and  they 
are  hereby  respectfully  and  cordially  requested  by  this  Con- 
vention, to  unite  with  and  become  regular  and  constitutional 
Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  upon  the 
basis  of  the  plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the  late  General 
Conference. 

2  Resolved,  That  should  any  portion  of  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence on  the  line  of  separation,  not  represented  in  this  Conven- 
tion, adhere  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  ac- 
cording to  the  plan  of  separation  adopted  at  the  late  General 
Conference,  and  elect  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  ,oi^ 
the  Church  in  1846,  upon  the  basis  of  representation  adopted 
by  this  Convention,  they  shall  be  accredited  as  members  of 
tlie  General  Conference. 

3.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  prepare  and  report  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1846,  a  revised  copy  of  the  present  Discipline,  with 
such  changes  as  are  necessary  to  conform  it  to  the  Oiganiza- 
tion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Respectfully 
.submitted.  John  Early,  Ch"n. 

The  first  resolution  was  then  adopted: 

Yeas. — Bascom,  Stevenson,  Kavanaugh,  Crouch,  Gunn, 
Taylor,  Brush,  Harrison,  King,  James,  Ralston,  Monroe,  J. 
Green,  Glanville,   Browning,  Patton,  Linn,  Boyle,  Johnson, 


200  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

Catlett,  String-field,  Stevens,  Sullins,  Fulton,  Paine,  McFerrin, 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  Pitts,  Driskill,  Hanner,  Boucher,  Madclin,  An- 
drews, Br3^ant,  Leigh,  Blake,  Carson,  Doub,  Brame,  Brock, 
Harris,  McMahon,  Joj^ier,  Davidson,  McAlister,  T.  Smith, 
Truslow,  Custer,  Early,  Crowder,  W.  A.  Smith,  Lee,  Penn, 
Doggett,  Cowles,  Dibrell,  Campbell,  Jones,  Drake,  Watkins, 
Winans,  Fowler,  Wilson,  Alexander,  Hamilton,  Boring,  Ca- 
pers, Levert,  Calloway,  Summers,  Garrett,  L.  Pierce,  Evans, 
Glenn,  Anthony,  Longstreet,  J.  Boring,  Payne,  Pierce,  Samford, 
W.  Capers,  Wightman,  Walker,  Dunwody,  English,  S.  W. 
Capers,  W.  Smith,  Boyd,  P.  P.  Smith,  Benning,  Peery,  Cam- 
ming— 95. 

Nays. — None. 

Absent. — Burr  H.  McCown,  Ferguson,  Harrell,  Rogers, 
Speer. — -5. 

The  following  dcouments  were  received  from  Bishops  Soule 
and  Andrew,  in  answer  to  the  invitation  contained  in  this 
resolution: — 

"  Dear  Brethren, — I  feel  myself  bound  in  good  faith,  to 
carry  out  the  olhcial  plan  of  Episcopal  Visitations  as  settled 
by  the  Bishops  in  New  York,  and  published  in  the  official 
papers  of  the  Church,  until  the  session  of  the  first  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South;  from 
which  time  it  would  be  necessary  that  the  plan  should  be  so 
changed  as  to  be  accommodated  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  two 
distinct  General  Conferences.  That  when  such  Southern 
General  Conference  shall  be  held,  I  shall  feel  myself  fully 
authorized  by  the  plan  of  separation,  adopted  by  General 
Conference  of  1844,  to  unite  myself  with  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  and  if  received  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  said  Church,  to  exercise  the  functions  of  the  Episcopal 
Office  within  the  jmisdiction  of  said  General  Conference. 
^^  "Joshua  Soule. 

'"Louisville,  Ky.,  May  19,  1845." 

"Dear  Brethren, — I  decidedly  approve  the  course  which 
the  Convention  has  taken  in  establishing  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  believing  as  I  do  most  sincerely,  that  it 
will  tend,  under  God's  blessing,  to  the  wider  spread  and  more 
e>fficient  propagation  of  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  I 
accept  the  invitation  of  the  Convention  to  act  as  one  of  the 
superintendents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  pledge  myself,  in  humble  dependence  upon  Divine  grace, 
to  use  my  best  efforts  to  promote  the  cause  of  God  in  the  in- 
teresting and  extensive  field  of  labor  assigned  me. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH,  201 

"May  the  blessing  of  God  be  upon  us  mutually,  in  our  labo- 
rious field  of  action,  and  finally,  may  wc  all,  with  our  several 
charges,  be  gathered  to  the  home  of  God  and  the  good  in 
heaven.  Affectionately  your  brother  and 

"  Fellow-laborer, 

"Louisville,  May,  1845.  James  O.  Andrew." 

On  motion  of  William  Gunn  the  Convention  adjourned  to 
meet  again  this  afternoon,  at  3  o'clock — the  Bishop  pronounc- 
ing the  benediction. 

MONDAY   AFTERNOON,  MAY  19. 

Convention  met.  Bishop  Soule  in  the  chair.  The  usual 
devotions  were  conducted  by  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce.  The  Minutes 
were  read  and  approved. 

The  additional  report  of  the  Committee  on  Organization 
was  taken  up,  and  the  Resolution  requiring  the  vote  to  be 
taken  by  yeas  and  nays  suspended. 

The  second  and  third  resolutions  of  the  report  were  then 
unanimously  adopted. 

The  Committee  on  Education  made  an  additional  report, 
which  was  adopted,  and  the  Secretary  was  instructed  to  fur- 
nish a  copy  of  the  same  to  the  President  of  Transylvania 
University.     It  is  as  follows: — 

The  Committee  on  Education  beg  leave  to  offer  the  follow- 
ing additional  report: — 

Transylvania  University,  though  not  now  strictly  under  the 
control  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  special 
claims  on  our  attention,  in  view  of  its  present  and  perspective 
relations.  A  connection  has  subsisted  between  that  Institution 
and  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference  for  nearly  three  years; 
during  which  period  that  Conference  has  enjoyed  the  control 
of  the  academical  department  and  has  supplied  it  with  pro- 
fessors. The  property  is  valuable — the  endowment  large,  and 
the  Institution  in  a  highly  prosperous  condition,  having  about 
two  hundred  and  seventy  students,  and  employing  eight  pro- 
fessors. The  control  of  this  department  of  the  University  is 
now  tendered  by  the  Trustees  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  through  this  Convention,  on  terms  entirely 
liberal  and  advantageous  to  the  Church.  That  the  Church 
should  avail  itself  of  a  proposition  so  well  calculated  to  pro- 
mote her  welfare  and  extend  her  sphere  of  useful  influence, 
can  hardly  be  doubted;  but  as  the  power  of  this  body  in  its 
conventional  capacity  to  act  conclusively  in  the  premises  is 
questionable,  the  consummation  of  the  proposed  connexion 
must  of  necessity  be  deferred  until  the  meeting  of  the  Ciene- 


302  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

ral  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in 
May,  1846.  It  is,  however,  in  the  mean  time,  expedient  to 
give  sifch  assurances  as  are  not  inconsistent  Avith  our  Con- 
ventional character,  of  a  just  appreciation  of  the  liberal  pro- 
position of  the  Trustees,  and  of  the  intention  of  the  Church  to 
consummate  in  good  faith  the  proposed  connexion,  so  soon  as 
it  may  be  practicable  to  do  so;  therefore, 

Resolved,  1.  That  the  members  of  this  Convention  highly  ap- 
preciate the  offer  made  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  by  the  Trustees  of  Transylvania  University,  of  the 
control  of  the  academical  department  of  said  Institution,  and 
that  we  will  use  our  influence,  so  far  as  it  may  be  done,  con- 
sistently Avith  obligations  to  kindred  Institutions  under  the  care 
of  our  Conferences,  to  promote  its  patronage  and  general 
prosperity. 

llcsolved,  2.  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  instruct 
their  delegates  in  the  General  Conference  of  1846,  to  take 
such  action,  as  will  consummate  the  proposed  connexion  be- 
tween the  Trustees  of  Transylvania  University  and  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  and  adopt  it  as  the  University  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Resolved,  3.  That  it  is  the  judgment  of  the  members  of  this 
Convention,  that  by  fair  construction  of  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions of  the  negotiation  pending  Ijetween  the  Trustees  of  Tran- 
sylvania University  and  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  vSouth,  it  will  be  competent  and  proper 
for  the  present  Curators  of  the  University,  in  behalf  of  the 
Church,  to  fiU  any  vacancies  in  their  own  Board,  until  the 
meeting  of  l|ie  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  Soufh,  in  May,  1846.  George  F.  Pierce,  Ch'n. 

The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  Pastoral  Address, 
submitted  the  following,  which  was  adopted: — 

To  the  ministers  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  to  all  the  brethren  of 
their  pastoral  oversight,  the  Convention  of  said  Annual  Con- 
ferences address  this  letter,  with  Christian  salutation. 

We  gratefully  regard  it  matter  of  congratulation,  beloved 
brethren,  for  which  our  thanks  should  be  offered  at  the  throne 
of  grace,  that  we  have  been  enabled  to  conduct  the  business 
conlidedto  us  by  you,  with  great  harmony,  and  except,  perhaps, 
;some  inconsiderable  shades  of  difference  on  points  of  minor 
import,  with  unexampled  unanimity.  Our  agreement  on  all 
questions  of  importance,  has  probably  been  as  perfect  as  the 
weakness  of  human  knowledge  might  allow,  or  reason  should 
require. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  203 

For  full  information  of  all  that  we  have  done,  we  refer  3^011 
to  the  journal  of  our  proceedings,  and  the  documents  which 
accompany  it;  particularly  the  Reports  of  the  Committees  on 
Organization,  and  on  Missions.  This  latter  interest  we  have 
made  the  subject  of  a  special  letter,  Avishing  to  bring  it  imme- 
diately to  the  notice  of  all  our  Chm'ches  and  congregations,  (to 
whom  we  have  requested  the  letter  might  be  read,)  to  engage 
their  instant  liberality. 

We  made  it  a  point  of  early  inquiry,  in  the  course  of  om' 
proceedings,  to  ascertain  with  what  unanimity  the  Annual 
Conferences  represented  by  us,  and  the  entire  body  of  the  min- 
istry and  membership  within  their  general  bounds,  were  known 
to  have  concurred  in  sustaining  the  declaration  of  the  South- 
ern delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference,  and  in  approving 
of  the  plan  provided  by  that  Conference  for  our  being  consti- 
tuted a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  separate  from  the 
North.  The  Committee  on  Organization,  being  composed  of 
two  members  from  each  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  Avas  fur- 
nished Avith  ample  means  of  obtaining  satisfactory  informa- 
tion. The  members  of  the  committee  held  meetings  with 
their  several  delegations  apart,  and  on  a  comparison  of  their 
several  reports  carefully  made,  it  was  found,  that  both  as  to  the 
members  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  local  ministry 
and  membership  of  our  entire  territory,  the  declaration  had 
been  sustained,  and  a  separa,te  organization  called  for,  by  as 
great  a  majority  as  ninety-jive  to  jive.  Nor  did  it  appear  that 
even  jive  in  a  hundred  were  disposed  to  array  themselves  against 
their  brethren,  whose  interests  were  identical  with  their  own, 
but  that  part  were  Northern  brethren  sojourning  in  our  bor- 
ders, and  part  were  dwelling  in  sections  of  the  country  where 
the  questions  involved  did  not  materially  concern  their  Clu"is- 
tian  privileges,  or  those  of  the  slaves  among  them.  So  great 
appears  to  have  been  the  unanimity  of  opinion  prevailing, 
both  among  the  pastors  and  the  people,  as  to  the  urgent  ne- 
cessity of  the  great  measure  which  we  were  deputed  to  effect, 
by  organizing  on  the  basis  of  the  discipline,  and  the  plan  pro- 
vided by  the  late  General  Conference,  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South. 

That  on  so  grave  a  question,  concerning  interests  so  sacred, 
and  affecting  so  numerous  a  people,  spread  over  the  vast  ex- 
tent of  the  country  from  Missouri  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and 
from  A  irginia  to  Texas,  there  should  be  found  some  who  dissent, 
is  what  we  could  not  but  expect.  But  that  the  number  dis- 
senting should  have  been  so  small,  compared  to  the  number  of 
those  who  have  required  us  to  act,  is,  at  least  to  our  minds, 
conclusive  proof  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  this  action,  as 
affording  the  only  means  left  in  our  poAver  to  preserve  the 


204  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

Church  in  the  more  Southern  States  from  hopeless  ruin.  In- 
deed the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  without  the 
intervention  of  the  declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and 
the  provisional  plan  for  a  separate  Southern  connection,  must 
have  immediately  broken  up  all  our  missions  to  the  people  of 
color,  and  subjected  their  classes  in  most  of  the  Southern  cir- 
cuits to  ruinous  deprivations.  Of  this,  the  evidence  has  been 
unquestionable.  And  it  must  appear  to  you,  brethren,  that 
for  whatever  reason  so  great  an  evil  was  threatened  for  a  cause 
which  the  Southern  delegates  did  nothing  to  produce,  but  re- 
sisted in  the  General  Conference,  that  evil  could  not  fail  of 
being  inflicted  with  redoubled  violence,  and  to  a  still  greater 
extent,  if  we,  having  a  platform  legally  furnished  for  a  sepa- 
rate organization,  should  hesitate  a  moment  to  avail  ourselves 
of  it.  It  would  be,  in  effect,  to  put  ourselves,  in  relation  to  the 
laws  and  policy  of  the  Southern  people,  in  the  same  position 
which  was  so  injuriously  offensive  in  our  Northern  brethren, 
W'hile  it  could  not  be  plead  in  extenuation  of  the  fault,  that  we 
w^ere  Northern  men,  and  ignorant  of  the  state  of  affairs  at 
the  South.  Into  such  a  position  we  could  not  possibly  put 
ourselves;  nor  can  we  think  that  reasonable  men  would  re- 
quire us  to  do  so. 

We  avow,  brethren,  and  we  do  it  with  the  greatest  solemni- 
ty, that  while  we  have  thus  been  laid  under  the  imperative 
force  of  an  absolute  necessity  to  organize  the  Southern  and 
South-western  Conferences  into  an  independent  ecclesiastical 
connection,  whose  jurisdiction  shall  be  exclusive  of  all  in- 
terference on  the  part  of  the  North,  we  do  not  withdraw 
from  the  true  Christian  and  Catholic  pale  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  And  that  Avhilst  we  have  complained,  with 
grievous  cause,  of  the  power  of  the  majority  of  the  General 
Conference,  as  that  power  has  been  construed  and  exercised, 
w^e  have  not  complained,  and  have  no  complaint,  against  the 
Church  in  itself.  The  General  Conference,  or  a  majority 
thereof,  is  not  the  Church.  Nor  is  it  possible  that  that  should 
be  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  withdraws  the  min- 
istry of  the  gospel  from  the  poor,  and  turns  her  aside  from 
her  calling  of  God  "  to  spread  scripture  holiness  over  these 
lands,"  in  order  to  fulfill  some  other  errand,  no  matter  what. 
We  could  not  be  Methodists  at  all,  as  we  have  been  taught 
wdiat  Methodism  is,  if  with  our  knowledge  of  its  nature,  its  aim, 
its  constitution,  its  discipline,  and  of  the  ruin  inevitable  to  the 
Avork  of  the  ministry  in  most  of  the  Southern  States,  if  not  in 
all  of  them,  should  we  still  cleave  to  a  Northern  jurisdiction; 
we  nevertheless  could  not  be  persuaded  to  yield  the  gospel  for 
a  jurisdictional  affinity  with  brethren,  who,  we  believe  in  our 
hearts,  cannot  govern  us  without  great  injury  to  the  cause  of 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  205 

Clirist  in  most  parts  of  our  M^ork.  If  we  err,  it  is  the  spirit  of 
Methodism  which  prompts  us  to  the  error.  We  "  call  God  for 
a  record,"  that,  as  far  as  we  know  our  hearts,  we  intend  noth- 
ing, we  desire  nothing,  we  do  nothing,  having  any  other  object 
or  aim  but  that  the  gospel  may  be  preached,  without  let  or 
hindrance?,  in  all  parts  of  our  country,  and  especially  to  the 
poor.  There  is  nothing  belonging  of  right  to  the  Church — 
her  doctrines,  her  discipline,  her  economy,  her  usages,  her 
efficiency,  which  we  do  not  cherish  in  our  inmost  hearts.  It  is 
not  the  Church,  not  any  thing  proper  to  the  Church,  in  her 
character  as  Christ's  body,  and  consecrated  to  the  promotion  of 
his  cause  in  the  earth,  which  we  would  disown,  or  depart  from, 
or  oppose;  but  only  such  a  position  in  the  Church  as  some  of 
her  sons  Mould  force  us  into,  antagonistic  to  her  principles, 
her  policy,  and  her  calling  of  God.  Nor  yet  can  we  be 
charged  with  any  factious  or  schismatic  opposition  to  the 
CJeneral  Conference,  for  we  have  done  nothing,  and  mean  to 
do  nothing,  not  authorized  by  express  enactment  of  that  body, 
in  view  of  the  very  emergency  which  compels  our  action. 

It  had  been  too  much  to  expect,  considering  the  weakness 
of  man,  that  .suddenly  roused  to  resistance  as  the  Southern 
Churches  were,  by  the  unlooked  for  action  in  the  cases  of 
Cishop  Andrew  and  brother  Harding,  there  should  not  in  some 
instances  have  escaped  expressions  of  resentment  and  unkind- 
ne.ss.  Or  that,  put  to  the  defence  of  the  majority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  where  the  evil  complained  of  was  so  serious, 
the  advocates  of  that  majority  should  not  sometimes  have  ex- 
pressed themselves  in  terms  which  seemed  harsh  and  unjust. 
\Ve  deeply  deplore  it,  and  pray  that  for  the  time  to  come,  such 
exhibitions  of  a  mortifying  frailty  may  give  place  to  Christian 
moderation.  We  invoke  the  spirit  of  peace  and  holiness. 
That  brother  shall  be  esteemed  as  deserving  best,  who  shall 
do  most  for  the  promotion  of  peace.  Sm'elv  this  is  a  time  of 
all  others,  in  our  day,  when  we  should  seek  and  pursue  peact;. 
A  continuance  of  strife  between  North  and  South,  must  pi-ove 
prejudicial  on  both  sides.  The  separation  is  made — formally, 
legally  made — and  let  peace  ensue.  In  Christ's  name  let 
there  be  peace.  Whatever  is  needful  to  be  done,  or  worth 
tlie  doing,  may  be  done  in  peace.  We  especially  exhort 
brethren  of  the  border  Conferences  and  societies,  to  forbear 
each  other  in  love,  and  labor  after  peace.  Let  every  one  abide 
by  the  law  of  the  (Jeneral  Conference  with  respect  to  our 
bounds,  and  choose  for  himself  with  Christian  temper,  and 
permit  others  to  choose  without  molestation,  between  North 
and  South.  Our  chief  care  should  be  to  maintain  "  the  unity 
of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  Methodism  preserved  in 
what  makes  it  one  the  world  over — the  purity  of  its  doctrines, 

18 


200  HISTORY   OF   THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

the  efficiency  of  its  discipline,  its  unworldliness,  its  zeal  for 
(iod,  its  self-devotion — is  of  infinitely  greater  value  than  a 
question  of  boundary,  or  General  Conference  jurisdiction 
merely. 

And  now,  brethren,  beseeching  you  to  receive  the  word  of 
exhortation  which  we  have  herein  briefly  addressed  to  you, 
and  humbly  invoking  the  blessings  of  God  upon  you,  accord- 
jug  to  the  riches  of  his  grace  in  Christ  our  Lord,  praying  for 
you,  as  we  always  do,  that  you  may  abound  in  every  good 
Avork,  and  confiding  in  your  prayers  for  us,  that  we  may  be 
found  one  with  you  in  faith  and  charity  at  the  appearing  of 
Jesus  Christ,  we  take  leave  of  you,  and  return  from  the  work 
Vihich  we  have  no^v  fulfilled,  to  renew  our  labors  with  you 
and  among  you  in  the  Lord.  James  O.  Andrew,  Pres't. 

TiioMAs  O.  Summers,  Sec'y. 
Louisville,  Ky.,'May  16,  1845. 

On  motion  of  Thomas  'N.  Ralston,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Convention,  those 
societies  and  stations  on  the  border,  within  the  limits  of  Con- 
ferences represented  in  this  Convention,  be  constructively 
understood  as  adhering  to  the  South,  unless  they  see  proper  to 
take  action  on  the  subject;  and  in  all  such  cases,  we  consider 
the  Pastor  of  the  society  or  station  as  the  proper  person  to 
preside  in  the  meeting. 

On  motion  of  William  A.  Smith,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  Pastoral  Address  be  printed,  and  that 
such  border  charges  or  societies  as  may  feel  themselves  called 
upon  to  make  an  election  between  the  Northern  and  Southern 
division  of  the  Church  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  respectfully 
requested  to  have  the  Pastoral  Address  of  this  Contention 
read  before  the  society  or  the  several  societies  of  the  charge, 
before  voting  on  the  subject. 

Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  presented  a  document  on  the  Bible  cause, 
Avhich  was  read,  adopted,  and  crdercd  to  be  published. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  William  Capers,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  we  cherish  an  afiectionate  sense  of  the  very 
kind  obligations  under  which  we  have  been  laid  to  our  friends 
of  this  city,  for  the  Christian  hospitality  with  which  we  have 
been  entert^ned  at  their  houses,  during  the  session  of  this 
Convention,  and  that  our  prayers  to  God  shall  not  be  wanting 
for  their  prosperity  and  spiritual  welfare. 

Resolved,  That  we  entertain  a  grateful  sense  of  the  liberali- 
ty of  those  Churches  and  Pastors  of  tliis  city  who  have  invited 
us  to  their  pulpits,  and  that  we  will  not  fail  to  remember  them 
as  brethren,  at  the  throne  of  grace. 

On  motion  of  Drs.  Winans  and  Bascom,  it  was 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  207 

Resolved,  That  tlic  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  tendered 
to  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew,  for  the  able  and  impartial  man- 
ner in  \Yhich  they  have  performed  the  laborious  and  responsi- 
ble duties  of  the  Chair  during  the   session  of  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  William  A.  Smith,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  we  hereby  tender  our  thanks  to  the  Rev. 
Thomas  O.  Summers,  Secretary  of  this  Convention,  and  to  the 
Rev.  Thomas  N.  Ralston,  Assistant  Secretary,  for  their  fidelity' 
in  the  discharge  of  the  laborious  duties  of  their  office. 

On  motion  of  Whitford  Smith,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  ^ve  devoutly  acknowledge  the  superintending 
Providence  of  GJod  over  this  Convention,  and  rejoice  in  the 
harmony  which  has  prevailed  in  all  its  deliberations  and 
decisions. 

On  motion  of  John  Early,  John  B.  McFerrin  was  instructed 
to  take  charge  of  the  Journal  and  papers  of  this  Convention. 

The  Minutes  were  then  read  and  approved,  and  on  motion 
of  John  Early,  the  Convention  adjourned.  This  venerable 
minister  offered  a  suitable  and  impressive  pra3'er  to  the  Throne 
of  Grace,  the  Convention  sung  an  appropriate  hymn,  and 
Bishop  Soule  pronounced  the  benediction.  Thus  closed  the 
Session.  Joshua  Soule,  Ch'n. 

Thomas  O.  Summers,  Sec'y. 

Thomas  N.  Ralston,  As't.  Sec'y. 
Louisville,  Ky.,  May  19,  1845. 


REPORT    OF    THE    COINEMITTEE    ON    ORGANIZATION. 

The  committee  appointed  to  enquire  into  the  propriety  and 
necessity  of  a  separate  organization  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  for  the  purpose  of  a  separate  General  Conference  con  • 
nexion  and  jurisdiction,  within  the  limits  of  said  States  and 
Conferences,  having  had  the*  entire  subject  under  careful  and 
patient  consideration,  together  ^vith  the  numerous  petition;*, 
instructions,  resolutions,  and  propositions  for  adjustment  and 
compromise,  referred  to  them  by  the  Convention — oiler  the 
following  as  their 

REPORT: 

In  vie\v  of  the  extent  to  Avhich  the  great  questions  in  con- 
troversy, between  the  North  and  the  South  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  have  been  discussed,  and  by  consequence 
must  be  understood  by  the  parties  more  immediately  interesteil: 
it  has  not  been  deemed  necessary  by  the  committee  to  enter 


208  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

into  any  formal  or  elaborate  examination  of  the  general  sub- 
ject, beyond  a  plain  and  comprehensive  statement  of  the  facts 
and  principles  involved,  which  may  place  it  in  the  power  of 
all  concerned,  to  do  justice  to  the  convictions  and  motives  of 
tlie  Southern  portion  of  the  Church,  in  resisting  the  action  of 
the  late  General  Conference  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  its  un- 
constitutional assumption  of  right  and  power  in  other  respects; 
and  also  presenting,  in  a  form  as  brief  and  lucid  as  possible, 
some  of  the  principal  grounds  of  action,  had  in  view  by  the 
South,  in  favoring  the  provisional  plan  of  separation,  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference  at  its  last  session. 

On  the  subject  of  the  legitimate  right,  and  the  full  and  pro- 
per authority  of  the  Convention  to  institute,  determine,  and 
linally  act  upon  the  enquiry,  referred  to  the  commi,ttee,  to  de- 
liberate and  report  upon,  the  committee  entertain  no  doubt 
whatever.  Apa.rt  from  every  other  consideration,  which 
might  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  question,  the  Gieneral  Con- 
ference of  1844,  in  the  plan  of  jurisdictional  separation 
adopted  by  that  body,  gave  full  and  express  authority  to  "  the 
Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,"  to  judge  of 
tlie  propriety,  and  decide  upon  the  necessity  of  organizing  a 
"  separate  ecclesiastical  connexion,"  in  the  South.  And  not 
only  did  the  General  Conference  invest  this  right  in  "  the  An- 
nual Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,"  ^vithout  limita- 
tion or  reserve,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  investment,  and  exclu- 
sively with  regard  to  every  other  division  of  the  Church,  and 
all  other  branches  or  powers  of  the  government,  but  left  the 
method  of  official  determination  and  the  mode  of  action,  in 
the  exercise  or  assertion  of  the  right,  to  the  free  and  untram- 
melled discretion  of  the  Conferences  interested.  These  Con- 
ferences, thus  accredited  by  the  General  Conference,  to  judge 
and  act  for  themselves,  confided  the  right  and  trust  of  decision 
and  action,  in  the  premises,  to  delegates  regularly  chosen  by 
tliese  bodies  respectively,  upon  a  uniform  principle  and  fixed 
ratio  of  representation,  previously  agreed  upon  by  each,  in 
constitutional  session,  and  directed  them  to  meet  in  general 
Convention,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  May,  184.5,  for  this  and 
other  purposes,  authorized  by  the  General  Conference,  at  the 
same  time  and  in  the  same  way.  All  the  right  and  power, 
therefore,  of  tlic  General  Conference,  in  any  way  connected 
with  the  important  decision  in  question,  were  duly  and  for- 
mally transferred  to  "  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,"  and  exclusively  invested  in  them.  And  as 
this  investment  was  obviously  for  the  purpose,  that  such  right 
and  power  might  be  exercised  by  them,  in  any  mode  they 
might  prefer,  not  inconsistent  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
the    investment,  the  delegates  thus   chosen,  one   hundred   in 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  20^ 

number,  and  representing  sixteen  Annual  Conferences,  under 
commission  of  the  General  Conference,  ^lere  and  now  assem- 
bled in  Convention,  have  not  only  all  the  right  and  power  of 
the  General  Conference,  as  transferred  to  "  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States,"  but  in  addition,  all  the 
right  and  power  of  necessity  inherent  in  these  bodies,  as  con- 
stituent parties,  giving  birth  and  power  to  the  General  Con- 
ference itself,  as  the  common  Federal  Council  of  the  Church. 
It  follows  hence,  that  for  all  the  purposes  specified  and  under- 
stood in  this  preliminary  view  of  the  subject,  the  Convention 
possesses  all  the  right  and  power  both  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  sixteen  "  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States,"  jointly  and  severally  considered.  The  ecclesiastical 
and  Conventional  right  therefore,  of  this  body,  to  act  in  the 
premises,  and  act  conclusively,  irrespective  of  the  whole 
church — and  all  its  powers  of  government  beside,  is  clear  and 
undoubted.  As  the  moral  right,  however,  to  act  as  proposed, 
in  the  General  Conference  plan  of  jurisdictional  separation, 
rests  upon  entirely  different  grounds,  and  will  perhaps  be  con- 
sidered as  furnishing  the  only  allowable  warrant  of  action, 
notwithstanding  constitutional  right,  it  may  be  necessary  at 
least  to  glance  at  the  gra.ve  moral  reasons,  creating  the  necessity, 
the  high  moral  compulsions,  by  which  the  Southern  Confer- 
ences and  Church  have  been  impelled  to  the  course  of  action, 
which  it  is  the  intention  of  this  Report  to  explain  and  vindi- 
cate, as  not  only  right  and  reasonable,  but  indispensable  to 
tlie  character  and  welfare  of  Southern  Methodism. 

The  preceding  statements  and  reasoning,  present  no  new 
principle  or  form  of  action  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  Nu- 
merous instances  might  be  cited,  in  the  constitutional  history 
of  Church  polity,  in  which  high  moral  necessity,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  recognized  Conventional  right,  has  furnished  the 
only  and  yet  sufficient  warrant  for  ecclesiastical  movements 
and  arrangements,  precisely  similar  in  character  with  that 
contemplated  in  the  plan  of  a  separate  Southern  Connection 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  adopted  by  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference.  Wesley  an  Methodism,  in  all  its  phases  and 
aspects,  is  a  most  pertinent  illustration  of  the  truth  we  assume, 
and  the  fitness  and  force  of  the  example  must  go  far  to  pre- 
clude the  necessity  of  any  other  proof.  It  was  on  the  specific 
basis  of  such  necessity,  without  Conventional  right,  that  the 
great  Wesleyan  Connection  arose  in  England.  It  was  upon 
the  same  basis,  as  avowed  by  Wesley,  that  the  American  Con-- 
nection  became  separate  and  independent,  and  this  Connec- 
tion again  avows  the  same  principle  of  action,  in  the  separa- 
tion and  establishment  of  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
Canada,  whose  organization  took  place  by  permission  and  di- 

18* 


210  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

rection  of  the  same  authority,  under  which  this  Convention  is 
now  acting  for  a  sirailar  purpose. 

Should  it  appear  in  the  premises  of  the  action  proposed, 
that  a  high,  moral,  and  religious  duty  is  devolved  upon  the 
ministry  and  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
in  the  South — devolved  upon  us  by  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church,  and  the  Providential  appointments  of  our  social  con- 
dition, which  we  cannot  neglect  without  infidelity  to  a  high 
moral  trust,  but  which  we  cannot  fulfil  in  connexional  union 
with  the  Northern  portion  of  the  Church,  under  the  same  Gen- 
eral Confereiice  jurisdiction,  owing  to  causes  connected  with 
the  civil  institutions  of  the  country,  and  beyond  the  control  of 
the  Church,  then  a  strong  moral  necessity  is  laid  upon  us, 
w^hich  assumes  the  commanding  character  of  a  positive  duty, 
under  sanction  of  Divine  right,  to  dissolve  the  ties  and  bonds 
of  a  single  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  and  in  its  place 
substitute  one  in  the  South,  which  will  not  obstruct  us  in  the 
performance  of  duty,  or  prevent  us  from  accomplishing  the 
great  objects  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church  organiza- 
tion. From  a  careful  survey  of  the  entire  field  of  facts  and 
their  relations — the  whole  range  of  cause  and  effect,  as  con- 
nected with  the  subject-matter  of  this  report,  it  is  confidently 
bQlieved  that  the  great  warrant  of  moral  necessity,  not  less  than 
unquestionable  ecclesiastical  right,  fully  justifies  this  Conven- 
tion in  the  position  they  are  about  to  take,  as  a  separate  or- 
ganic division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by  authority 
of  its  chief  synod,  "  the  delegates  of  all  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled."  One  of  the  two 
main  issues,  which  have  decided  the  action  of  the  Southern  Con- 
ferences, relates,  as  all  know,  to  the  assumed  right  of  the  Church 
to  control  the  question  of  slavery,  by  means  of  the  ordinary 
and  fluctuating  provisions  of  Church  legislation,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  superior  control  of  State  policy  and  civil  law. — 
From  all  the  evidence  accessible  in  the  case,  the  great  masses 
of  the  ministry  and  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  North  and  South,  present  an  irreconcilable  opposition 
of  conviction  and  feeling  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  so  far  a^ 
relates  to  the  rights  of  the  Church  to  interfere  with  the  ques- 
tion— the  one  claiming  unlimited  right  of  interference  to  the 
full  extent  the  Church  may,  at  any  time  or  from  any  cause,  bo 
concerned,  and  the  other  resisting  alike  the  assumption  or  ex- 
ercise of  any  such  right,  because,  in  nearly  all  the  slaveholding 
States,  such  a  course  of  action  must  bring  the  Church  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  civil  authority,  to  which  the  Church  has 
pledged  subjection  and  support  in  the  most  solemn  and  explicit 
forms,  and  from  the  obligations  of  which  she  cannot  retreat 
without  dishonoring  her  own  laws,  and  the  neglect  and  viola- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  211 

tion  of*  some  of  the  plain  and  most  imperative  requirements 
of  Christianity.  Under  such  circumstances  of  disagreement— 
in  such  a  state  of  adverse  conviction  and  feeling  on  the  part 
of  the  North  and  South  of  the  Church,  it  is  believed  that  the 
two  great  sections  of  the  Church,  thus  situated,  in  relation  to 
each  other  by  causes  beyond  the  control  of  either  party,  can- 
not remain  together  and  successfully  prosecute  the  high  and 
common  aims  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church  organiza- 
tion, under  the  same  General  Conference  jurisdiction.  Tho 
manifest  want  of  uniformity  of  opinion  and  harmony  of  co- 
operation, must  always  lead,  as  heretofore,  to  struggles  and 
results  directly  inconsistent  with  the  original  intention  of  the 
Church,  in  establishing  a  common  jurisdiction,  to  control  all 
its  general  interests.  And  should  it  appear  that,  by  a  division 
and  future  duality  of  such  jurisdiction  as  authorized  by  the 
late  General  Conference,  the  original  purposes  of  the  Church 
can  better  be  accomplished,  or  rather,  that  they  can  be  accom- 
plished in  no  other  way,  how  can  the  true  and  proper  unity  of 
the  Church  be  maintained  except  by  yielding  to  the  necessity, 
and  having  a  separate  General  Conference  jurisdiction  for 
each  division?  By  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church  gene- 
rally, slavery  is  regarded  as  strictly  a  civil  institution  exclu- 
sively in  custody  of  the  civil  power,  and  as  a  regulation  of 
State  beyond  the  reach  of  Church  interference  or  control,  ex- 
cept as  civil  law  and  right  may  be  infringed  by  ecclesiastical 
assumption.  By  the  Northern  portion  of  the  Church,  individ- 
uals are  held  responsible  for  the  alleged  injustice  and  evil  of 
relations  and  rights,  created  and  protected  by  the  organic  and 
municipal  laws  of  the  Government  and  coimtry,  and  which 
r(dations  and  rights,  in  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  slavehold- 
ing  States,  are  not  under  individual  control  in  any  sense  or  to 
any  extent. 

Both  portions  of  the  Church  are  presumed  to  act  from  prin- 
ciple and  conviction,  and  cannot,  therefore,  recede;  and  /low, 
under  such  circumstances,  is  it  possible  to  prevent  the  most 
fearful  disunion,  with  all  the  attendant  evils  of  contention  and 
strife,  except  by  allowing  each  section  a  separate  and  indepen- 
dent jurisdiction,  the  same  in  character  and  purpose  Avith  the 
one  to  which  both  have  hitherto  been  subject.  What  fact, 
truth,  or  principle,  not  merely  of  human  origin,  and  therefore 
of  doubtful  authority,  can  be  urged,  as  interposing  any  reason- 
able obstacle  to  a  change  of  jurisdiction,  merely  rnodcd  in  charac- 
ter, and  simply  designed  to  adapt  a  single  principle  of  Church 
government,  not  pretended  to  be  of  divine  obligation  or  scrip- 
ture origin,  to  the  character  and  features  of  the  civil  govern- 
ment of  the  countr}^?  Nothing  essential  to  Church  organi- 
zation— nothing   essentially  distinctive  of   Methodism — even 


212  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

American  Methodism,  is  proposed  to  be  distm-bed  or  even 
touched,  by  the  arrangement.  It  is  a  simple  division  of  gene- 
ral jurisdiction,  for  strong  moral  reasons,  arising  out  of  the 
civil  relations  and  position  of  the  parties,  intended  to  accom- 
plish for  both,  what  it  is  demonstrated  by  experiment,  cannot 
be  accomplished  by  one  common  jurisdiction,  as  now  consti- 
tuted, and  should  therefore,  under  the  stress  of  such  moral 
necessity,  be  attempted  in  some  other  way. 

The  question  of  slavery,  more  or  less  intimately  interwoven 
with  the  interests  and  destiny  of  nine  millions  of  human  beings, 
in  the  United  States,  is  certainly  of  sufficient  importance, 
coming  up  as  it  has,  in  the  recent  history  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  as  it  does  in  the  deliberations  of  this  Conven- 
tion, to  authorize  any  merely  modal  or  even  organic  changes  in 
the  government  of  the  Church,  should  it  appear  obvious  that  the 
original  and  avowed  purposes  of  the  Church  will  be  more  effect- 
ively secured  and  promoted  by  the  change  proposed,  than  by  con- 
tinuing the  present  or  former  system.  The  evidence  before  the 
committee,  establishes  the  fact  in  the  clearest  manner  possible, 
that  throughout  the  Southern  Conferences,  the  ministry  and 
membership  of  the  Church,  amounting  to  nearly  500,000,  in 
tlie  proportion  of  about  ninety-five  in  the  hundred,  deem  a 
division  of  jurisdiction  indispensable  to  the  welfare  of  the 
Church,  in  the  Southern  and  South-western  Conferences  of  the 
slaveholding  States;  and  this  fact  alone,  must  go  far  to  estab- 
lish the  right,  while  it  demonstrates  the  necessity  of  the  separate 
jurisdiction,  contemplated  in  the  plan  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  adopted  by  that  body  in  view  of  such  necessity,  as 
likely  to  exist.  The  interests  of  State,  civil  law,  and  public 
opinion,  in  the  South,  imperiously  require,  that  the  Southern 
portion  of  the  Church  shall  have  no  part  in  the  discussion  and 
agitation  of  this  subject  in  the  chief  councils  of  the  Church, 
In  this  opinion,  nearly  universal  in  the  South,  we  concur. 

Christ  and  his  Apostles — Christianity  and  its  inspired  and 
early  teachers,  found  slavery  in  its  most  offensive  and  aggrava- 
ted forms,  as  a  civil  institution,  diffused  and  existing  through- 
out nearly  the  entire  field  of  their  ministrations  and  influence; 
and  yet,  in  the  New  Testament  and  earlier  records  of  the 
Church,  we  have  no  legislation — no  interference — no  denunci- 
ation with  regard  to  it,  not  even  remonstrance  against  it. 
They  found  it  wrought  up  and  vitally  intermingled  with  the 
whole  machinery  of  civil  government  and  order  of  society — so 
implicated  with  "the  powers  that  be,"  that  infinite  wisdom,  and 
the  early  pastoral  guides  of  the  Church,  saw  just  reason  why 
the  Church  should  not  interfere  beyond  a  plain  and  urgent  en- 
forcement of  the  various  duties  growing  out  of  the  peculiar 
relation  of  master  and  slave,  leaving  the  relation  itself,  as  a 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  213 

civil  arrangement,  untouched  and  unaffected,  except  so  far 
as  it  seems  obviously  to  have  been  the  Divine  purpose  to  re- 
move every  form  and  degree  of  Avrong  and  evil  connected 
'with  the  institutions  of  human  government,  by  a  faithful  in- 
culcation of  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity,  without 
meddling  in  any  way  with  the  civil  polity  of  the  countries  into 
which  it  was  introduced.  A  course  precisely  similar  to  this, 
the  example  of  Avhich  should  have  been  more  attractive,  was 
pursued  by  the  great  founder  of  Methodism,  in  all  slavehold- 
ing  countries  in  which  he  established  societies.  Mr.  Wesley 
never  deemed  it  proper  to  have  any  rule,  law,  or  regulation  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  either  in  the  United  States,  the  West 
Indies,  or  elsewhere.  The  effects  of  the  early  and  unfortu- 
nate attempts  of  the  Methodist  Church  to  meddle  and  inter- 
fere, in  the  Icsiskition  and  practice  of  government  and  discipline, 
with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  are  too 
well  known  to  require  comment.  Among  the  more  immediate 
results  of  this  shortsighted,  disastrous  imprudence,  especially 
from  1780  to  1804,  may  be  mentioned  the  watchful  jealousy 
of  civil  government,  and  the  loss  of  public  confidence  through- 
out a  very  large  and  influential  portion  of  the  whole  Southern 
community.  These,  and  similar  developments,  led  the  Church, 
by  the  most  careful  and  considerate  steps,  to  the  adoption, 
gradua,lly,  of  a  medium  compromise  course  of  legislation  on 
the  subject,  until  the  law  of  slavery,  as  it  now  exists  in  the 
lettci-  of  discipline,  became,  by  the  last  material  act  of  legisla- 
tion in  1816,  the  great  compromise  bond  of  union  between 
the  North  and  the  South  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  whole 
law  of  the  Church,  all  there  is  in  the  statute-book  to  govern 
North  and  South  on  this  subject,  is  the  following:  First:  The 
general  rule,  which  simply  prohibits  "the  buying  or  selling  of 
men,  women,  or  children,  with  an  intcntioji  to  enslave  thcm.^' 
Second:  "  No  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station 
in  our  Church  hereafter,  where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which 
he  lives  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  freedom.  When  any  traveling  preacher  be- 
comes an  owner  of  a  slave,  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall 
forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  exe- 
cute, if  it  be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves, 
conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives." 

Here  is  the  law,  the  whole,  the  onli/  law  of  the  Church,  con- 
taining first,  a  proliibition,  and  second  a  grant.  The  prohibi- 
tion is,  that  no  member  or  minister  of  the  Church,  is  allowed 
to  purchase  or  sell  a  human  being,  who  is  to  be  enslaved,  or 
reduced  to  a  state  of  slavery,  by  such  purchase  or  sale.  And 
further,  that  no  minister,  in  any  of  the  grades  of  ministerial 
office,  or  other  person,  having  official  standing  in  the  Church, 


214  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

can,  if  he  be  the  owner  of  a  slave,  be  allowed  to  sustain  such 
official  relation  to  the  Church,  unless  he  shall  legally  provide 
for  the  emancipation  of  such  slave  or  slaves,  if  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  legal  emancipation,  and 
permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom.  Such  isthe  plain 
prohibition  of  law,  binding  upon  all.  The  grant  of  the  law, 
however,  is  equally  plain  and  unquestionable.  It  is,  that  per- 
sons mai/  purchase  or  sell  men,  women,  or  childB^n,  provided 
such  purchase  or  sale  does  not  involve  the  fact  or  intention  of 
enslaving  them,  or  of  rcducinfr  the  subjects  of  such  purchase  or 
sale  to  a  state  of  slaverij.  The  intention  of  the  law  no  doubt  is, 
that  this  may  be  done  from  motives  of  humanity,  and  not  by 
any  means  for  the  purpose  of  gain.  But  further,  the. law  dis- 
tinctly provides,  that  every  minister,  in  whatever  grade  of  office, 
and  every  person  having  official  standing  of  any  kind,  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  being  the  owner  or  owners  of 
slave  property,  shall  be  protected  against  any  forfeiture  of 
right,  on  this  account,  where  the  laws  of  the  State  do  not  ad- 
mit of  legal  emancipation,  and  allow  the  liberated  slave  to 
enjoy  freedom  in  the  State  in  which  he  is  emancipated.  Here 
is  the  plain  grant  of  law  to  which  we  allude.  From  the  first 
agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Church,  the  Northern 
portion  of  it  has  been  disposed  to  insist  upon  further  p7-ohibitorij 
enactments.  The  South,  meauMdiile,  has  always  shown  itself 
ready  to  go  as  far,  by  way  of  prohibition,  as  the  law  in  question 
implies,  but  has  uniformly  resisted  any  attempt  to  impair  South- 
ern riglits  under  protection  of  the  grant  of  la^v  to  which  we 
have  asked  attention.  Under  such  circumstances  of  disagree- 
ment and  difficulty,  the  conventional  and  legislative  adjust- 
ment of  the  question,  as  found  in  the  General  Rule,  but  espe- 
cially the  tenth  scQvion  of  the  discipline,  was  brought  about,  and 
has  always  been  regarded  in  the  South  as  a  great  compromise 
arrangement,  without  strict  adherence  to  which,  the  North  and 
the  Soutli  could  not  remain  together  under  the  same  general 
jurisdiction.  That  we  have  not  mistaken  the  character  of  the 
law,  or  misconstrued  the  intention  and  purposes  of  its  enact- 
ment, at  different  times,  we  think  entirely  demonstrable  from 
the  whole  history  both  of  the  legislation  of  the  Church  and 
the  judicial  and  executive  administration  of  the  Government. 
The  full  force  and  bearing  of  the  law,  however,  were  more 
distinctly  brought  to  view,  and  authoritatively  asserted,  by  the 
General  Conlerence  of  1840,  after  the  most  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  whole  subject,  and  the  judicial  determination  of 
that  body,  connected  with  the  language  of  the  discipline  just 
quoted,  gives  in  still  clearer  hght  the  true  and  only  law  of  the 
Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  After  deciding  various 
other  principles  and  positions  incidental  to  the  main  question, 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  215 

the  decision  is  summed  np  in  the  following  words:  "  While 
the  general  rule  (or  law)  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  relating  to 
those  States  whose  laws  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit 
tlie  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  should  be  firmly  and  con- 
stantly enforced,  the  exception  to  the  general  rule  (or  law) 
applying  to  those  States  where  emancipation,  as  defined  above, 
is  not  jjraciicahle,  should  be  recognized  and  protected  with  equal 
firmness  and  impartiality;  therefore — ■ 

Resolved  hy  the  severed  Annued  Conferences  in  General  Con- 
ference assembled,  That  under  the  provisional  exception  of 
the  general  rule  (or  law)  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of 
slave  property,  in  States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do  not 
admit  of  emancipation  and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  en- 
joy freedom,  constitutes  no  legal  harrier  to  the  election  or  ordi- 
nation of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in 
the  ministry  of  the  ]\Iethodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot, 
therefore,  be  considered  as  operating  any  foiifciture  of  right, 
in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination."  This  decision  of 
the  General  Conference  was  not  objected  to  or  dissented  from 
})y  a  single  member  of  that  body.  It  Avas  the  unanimous  voice 
of  the  great  representative  and  judicial  council  of  the  Church 
then  acting  in  the  character  of  a  high  court  of  appeals  for  the 
decision  of  an  important  legal  question.  It  will  be  perceived 
how  strikingly  the  language  of  this  decision  accords  with  both 
the  features  of  the  law  of  slavery  which  we  have  thought  it 
important  to  notice,  the  prohibition  and  the  grant  of  law  in  the 
case;  what  may  not  be  done  as  the  general  rule,  and  at  the 
same  time  what  maybe  done,  under  the  provisional  exception  to 
the  general  law,  without  forfeiture  of  right  of  any  kind.  It 
is  also  Avorthy  of  particular  notice,  that  beside  the  plain  assu- 
rance of  the  original  law,  that  where  emancipation  is  not  le- 
gally practicable,  and  the  emancipated  slave  allowed  to  enjoy 
freedom,  or  Avhcre  it  is  practicable  to  emancipate  but  the 
emancipated  slave  cannot  enjoy  freedom,  emancipation  is  not 
required  of  any  owner  of  slaves  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  from  the  lowest  officer  up  to  the  Bishop,  but  the  rights 
of  all  thus  circumstanced  are  protected  and  secured,  notwith- 
standing their  connection  with  slavery.  Besides  this,  the  full 
and  elaborate  decision  of  the  General  Conference  as  a  grave 
and  formal  adjudication  had  upon  all  the  issues  involved  in 
the  question,  published  to  all  Avho  were  in  or  might  be  disposed 
to  enter  the  Church,  that  the  law  of  slavery  applied  to  States 
where  emancipation  is  impracticable,  and  the  freed  slave  not 
allowed  to  enjoy  freedom,  this  clear  and  unambiguous  decision, 
by  the  highest  authority  of  the  Church,  leaves  the  owner  of 
slaves  upon   the  ground — upon  a   basis  of  the  most  perfect 


216  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

equality  with  other  ministers  of  the  Church,  having  no  con- 
nection with  slavery.  Such,  then,  is  the  law;  such  its  con- 
struction; such  the  official  and  solemn  pledge  of  the  Church. 
And  these  had,  to  a  great  extent,  restored  the  lost  confidence 
and  allayed  the  jealous  apprehensions  of  the  South,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  purposes  of  the  Church  respecting  slavery.  There 
was  in  the  South  no  disposition  to  disturb,  discuss,  or  in  any 
w^ay  agitate  the  subject.  The  law  was  not  objected  to  or 
complained  of,  but  was  regarded  as  a  settled  compromise  be- 
tween the  parties,  a  medium  arrangement  on  the  ground  of 
mutual  concession,  well  calculated  to  secure  and  promote  the 
best  interests  of  the  Church  North  and  South. 

That  this  law,  this  great  compromise  conservative  arrange- 
ment, which  had  been  looked  to  as  the  only  reliable  bond  of 
jurisdictional  union  between  the  North  and  South  for  nearly 
half  a  centuiy,  was  practically  disregarded  and  abandoned  by 
the  last  General  Conference,  in  the  memorable  cases  of  Harding 
and  Andrew,  both  by  judicial  construction  and  virtual  legisla- 
tion, manifestly  inconsistent  with  its  pi-ovisions  and  purposes, 
and  subversive  of  the  great  objects  of  its  enactment,  has  been 
too  fearfully  demonstrated  by  various  ibrms  of  proof,  to  re- 
quire more  than  a  brief  notice  in  this  report.  The  actual  po- 
sition of  the  Church  M^as  suddenly  reversed  and  its  long  es- 
tablished policy  entirely  changed.  The  whole  law  of  the 
Church  and  the  most  important  adjudications  had  upon  it, 
were  treated  as  null  and  obsolete,  and  that  body  proceeded  to 
a  claim  of  right  and  course  of  action  amounting  to  a  virtual 
repeal  of  all  law^,  and  new  and  capricious  legislation  on  the 
most  difficult  and  delicate  question  ever  introduced  into  the 
councils  of  the  Church  or  named  upon  its  statute  book. 

By  no  fair  construction  of  the  la^v  of  slavery  as  given  above, 
could  the  Church  be  brought  in  conffict  with  civil  legislation 
on  the  subject.  It  is  true,  as  demanded  by  the  convictions  and 
opinions  of  the  Church,  testimoii}/^  w^as  borne  against  the  evil 
of  slavery,  but  it  was  done  without  conflicting  with  the  polity 
and  laws  of  any  portion  of  the  country.  No  la\v,  for  example, 
affected  the  lay-membership  of  the  Church  with  regard  to 
slaveholding;  the  Church  gave  its  full  permission  that  the  pri- 
vate members  of  the  Church  might  own  and  hold  slaves  at 
discretion;  and  the  inference  is  indubitable,  that  the  Church 
did  not  consider  simple  slaveholding  as  a  moral  evil,  personally 
attaching  to  the  mere  fact  of  being  the  owner  or  holder  of 
slaves.  The  evil  charged  upon  slavery  must  of  necessity 
haVe  been  understood  of  other  aspects  of  the  subject,  and 
could  not  imply  moral  obliquity,  without  impeaching  the  integ- 
rity and  virtue  of  the  Church.  Moreover,  where  the  laws 
precluded  emancipation,  the  ministry  were  subjected  to  no 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  217 

disabilities  of  any  kind,  and  the  requirements  of  the  Church, 
in  relation  to  slavery,  were  not  at  least  in  any  thing  like  direct 
conflict  with  civil  law.  In  contravention,  however,  of  the 
plain  and  long  established  law  of  the  Church,  the  action  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  the  well  known  instances 
cited,  brought  the  Church  into  a  state  of  direct  and  violent 
antagonism  with  the  civil  authority  and  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship, throughout  all  the  slaveholding  States.  This  was  not 
done  by  the  repeal  of  existing  law,  or  additional  legislation 
by  direct  enactment,  but  in  a  much  more  dangerous  form,  by 
the  simple  process  of  resolution  by  an  irresponsible  majority, 
requiring  Southern  ministers  as  slaveholders,  in  order  to  Church 
eligibility  and  equality  of  right  with  non -slaveholding  minis- 
ters of  the  Church,  to  do  what  cannot  be  done  without  a  vio- 
lation of  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  reside,  and  is 
not  required  or  contemplated,  but  expressly  excepted  and  even 
provided  against  by  the  law  of  the  Church. 

It  will  thus  appear  that  the  entire  action  of  the  General 
Conference  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  was  in  direct  conflict 
with  the  law,  both  of  the  Church  and  the  land,  and  could  not 
have  been  submitted  to  by  the  South,  without  the  most  serious 
detriment  to  the  interests  of  the  Church.  The  action  in  the 
instance  of  Bishop  Andrew,  was  in  the  strongest  and  most  ex- 
ceptionable sense,  extra-judicial.  It  was  not  pretended  that 
Bishop  Andrew  had  violated  any  law  of  the  Church;  so  far 
from  this,  the  only  law  applicable  to  the  case,  gave,  as  we  have 
seen,  ample  and  explicit  assurance  of  protection.  So  to  con- 
strue law,  or  so  proceed  to  act  without  reference  to  law,  as  to 
abstract  from  it  its  whole  protective  power,  and  deprive  it  of 
all  its  conservative  tendencies  in  the  system,  is  one  of  ihc 
most  dangerous  forms  of  legal  injustice,  and  as  a  principle  of 
action,  mu.st  be  considered  as  subversive  of  all  order  and  gov- 
ernment. The  late  General  Conference  required  of  Bishop 
Andre^v,  the  same  being  equally  true  in  the  case  of  Harding, 
as  the  condition  of  his  being  acceptable  to  the  Church,  the 
surrender  of  rights  secured  to  him,  both  by  civil  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal law.  The  purposes  of  law  were  contravened  and  de- 
stroyed, and  its  prerogative  and  place  usurped  by  mere  opinion. 

The  requisition  in  the  case  was  not  only  extra-judicial, 
being  made  in  the  absence  of  anything  like  law  authorizing 
the  measm-e,  but  being  made  at  the  same  time  against  law,  it 
was  usurpation;  and  so  far  as  the  proceeding  coiuplained  of  is 
intended  to  establish  a  principle  of  action  with  regard  to  the 
future,  it  gives  to  the  General  Conference  all  the  attributes  of 
a  despotism,  claiming  the  right  to  govern  icithout,  above  and 
against  law.  The  doctrine  avo\ved  at  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, and  practically  endorsed  by  the  majority,  that  that 

19 


218  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

body  may,  by  simple  resolution,  advisory,  punitive,  or  declara- 
tory, repeal  an  existing  law  in  relation  to  a  particular  case, 
leaving  it  in  full  force  with  regard  to  other  cases — or  may 
enact  a  new  and  different  law,  and  apply  it  judicially  to  the 
individual  case,  which  led  to  the  enactment,  and  all  in  a  mo- 
ment, by  a  single  elevation  of  the  hand,  is  a  position — a  doc- 
trine so  utterly  revolutionary  and  disorganizing,  as  to  place  in 
jeopardy  at  once,  both  the  interests  and  reputation  of  the 
«.'hurch.  The  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  not  only 
assumed  the  character,  and  usurped  the  place  of  law,  but  was 
clearly  an  instance  of  ex  'post  facto  legislation,  by  making  that 
an  offence  after  the  act,  which  was  not  such  before.  The 
conduct  charged  as  an  offence,  was  at  the  time,  and  continues 
to  be,  under  the  full  protection  of  a  M^ell  understood,  and 
standing  law  of  the  Church,  and  yet  this  conduct  w^as  made 
criminal,  and  pmiishable  by  the  retrospective  action  of  the 
<  'onference  to  which  we  allude.  The  officially  expressed  will 
of  the  General  Conference  intended  to  govern  and  circumscribe 
the  conduct  of  Bishop  Andrew,  without  reference  to  existing 
law,  and  indeed  contrary  to  it,  was  made  the  rule  of  action, 
and  he  found  guilty  of  its  violation,  b}''  acts  done  before  he 
was  made  acquainted  with  it.  The  conduct  charged,  was  in 
{)erfect  consistency  with  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  could  only 
be  ^^•rought  into  an  offence  by  an  ex  post  facto  bearing  of  the 
after  action  of  the  General  Conference. 

Bishop  Andrew  became  the  owner  of  slave  property,  in- 
^■oluntarily,  several  years  l^efore  his  marriage,  and  as  the  fact, 
nnd  not  the  extent  of  his  connection  with  slavery  constituted 
his  offence,  it  folio vv^s,  that  for  a  relation  in  which  he  was 
placed  by  the  action  of  others,  and  the  operation  of  civil  law, 
and  in  which,  as  a  citizen  of  Georgia,  he  was  compelled  to  re- 
main, or  be  brought  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of  the  State,  he 
?r/75,  in  violation  of  the  pledge  of  public  law,  as  we  have  shown, 
arrested  and  punished  by  the  General  Conference.  That  body 
b ,'  direct  requirement,  such  at  least  by  implication,  commanded 
hhri  to  free  his  slaves,  or  suffer  official  degradation.  The  law 
of  Georgia  required  him  to  hold  his  slaves,  or  transfer  them  to 
be  held  as  such  by  others,  under  heavy  and  painful  penalties  to 
master  and  slave.  To  avoid  ecclesiastical  punishment  and 
disability,  the  Church  required  him  either  to  leave  the  State  of 
bis  residence,  or  violate  its  laws.  In  this  way,  taking  the  ju- 
dicial decision  in  Harding's  case,  and  the  anomalous  action  in 
Bishop  Andrew's,  the  Church  is  placed  in  most  ofliensive  con- 
flict with  the  civil  authority  of  the  State.  Can  any  country  or 
government  safely  allow  the  Church  to  enforce  disobedience 
to  civil  hxw,  as  a  Christian  duty?  If  such  attempts  are  made 
to  subordinate  the  civil  interests  of  the  State,  to  the  schemes 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  219 

and  purposes  of  Church  innovation,  prompted  and  sustained 
by  the  bigotry  and  fanaticism  of  large  masses  of  ignorant  and 
misguided  zealots  engaged  in  the  conflict  in  the  name  of  Gotl 
and  conscience,  and  for  the  ostensible  purposes  of  religious  re- 
form, what  can  be  the  stability  of  civil  government,  or  the 
hopes  of  those  seeking  its  protection?  And  what,  we  ask, 
must  be  the  interest  of  the  South,  in  connection  M'ith  such 
movements? 

In  the  instance  of  slavery  in  this  country,  it  is  but  too  wejl 
known,  that  such  antagonism  as  is  indicated  by  the  preceding 
facts  and  developments  between  the  purposes  of  the  Church 
and  the  policy  of  the  State,  must  result  in  the  most  disastrous 
consequences  to  both.  The  slavery  of  the  Southern  States, 
can  never  be  reduced  in  amount  or  mitigated  in  form  by  such 
a  state  of  things.  The  Southern  States  have  the  sole  control 
of  the  question,  under  the  authority  and  by  contract  of  the: 
Federal  Constitution,  and  all  hope  of  removing  the  evil  of 
slavery,  without  destroying  the  A^ational  compact  and  the 
union  of  the  States,  must  connect  M^ith  the  individual  sove- 
reignty of  the  Southern  States,  as  parties  to  the  Federal 
compact,  and  the  independent  policy  of  each  State  in  relation 
to  slavery,  as  likely  to  be  influenced  by  moral  and  political 
reasons  and  motives,  brought  to  bear,  by  proper  means  and 
methods,  upon  the  understanding  and  moral  sense  of  the 
Southern  people.  All  trespass  upon  right,  whether  as  it  re- 
gards the  rights  of  property  or  of  character — ever}^  thing  likr 
aggression,  mere  denunciation  or  abuse,  must  of  necessity 
tend  to  provoke  further  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  South, 
and  lessen  the  influence  the  North  might  otherwise  have  upon 
the  great  mass  of  the  Southern  people,  in  relation  to  this  gieat 
and  exciting  interest.  The  true  character  and  actual  relations 
of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  are  so  predominantly  civil  and 
political,  that  any  attempt  to  treat  the  subject  or  control  the 
question,  upon  purely  moral  and  ecclesiastical  grounds,  can 
never  exert  any  salutary  influence  South,  except  in  so  far  as 
the  moral  and  ecclesiastical  shall  be  found  strictly  sul)()rdinate 
to  the  civil  and  political.  This  mode  of  appeal,  it  is  believed, 
will  never  satisfy  the  North.  The  whole  Northern  portion  of 
the  Chm*ch,  speaking  through  their  guides  and  leaders,  is  man- 
ifesting an  increasing  disposition  to  form  issues  upon  the  sub- 
ject, so  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  rights  and  peace  of  the 
slaveholding  States,  that  by  how  far  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  the  South,  may  contribute  to  the  bringing  about  of 
such  a  state  of  things,  or  may  fail  to  resist  it,  the  influence  of 
Methodism  must  be  depressed,  and  the  interest  of  the  Churcli 
suffer.  In  addition  then,  to  the  fact,  that  we  have  already  re- 
ceived an  amount  of  injury,  beyond  what  we  can  bear,  except 


220  HISTORY    OF   THE    ORGANIZATION   OF   THE 

under  a  separate  organization,  we  have  the  strongest  grounds 
of  apprehension,  that  unless  ^ve  place  ourselves  in  a  state  of 
defence  and  prepare  for  independent  action,  under  the  distinct 
jurisdiction  we  are  now  authorized  by  the  Qeneral  Conference 
to  resolve  upon,  and  oi'ganize,  we  shall  soon  find  oui'selves  so 
completely  subjected  to  the  adverse  views  and  policy  of  the 
A^orthern  majority,  as  to  be  left  without  right  or  remedy,  ex- 
cept as  a  mere  secession  from  the  Church.  Now,  the  case  is 
entirely  different,  as  we  propose  to  do  nothing,  not  authorized 
in  the  General  Conference  plan  of  separation,  either  expressly 
or  by  necessary  implication.  The  general  view  thus  far 
taken  of  the  subject,  is  intended  to  show,  that  "the  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  slavcholding  States,"  embracing  the  entire 
Church  South,  have  found  themselves  placed  in  circumstances, 
by  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  May  last,  which 
according  to  the  declaration  of  the  Southern  Delegates,  at  the 
time,  render  it  impracticable  to  accomplish  the  objects  of  the 
Christian  Ministry  and  Church  organization,  under  the  present 
system  of  General  Conference  control,  and  showing  by  the 
most  clear  and  conclusive  evidence,  that  there  exists  the  most 
urgent  necessity  for  the  '  separate  ecclesiastical  connection,' 
constitutionally  provided  for  by  the  General  Conference  upon 
the  basis  of  the  Declaration,  just  adverted  to.  At  the  date 
of  the  Declaration,  the  Southern  Delegates  were  fully  con- 
vinced that  the  frequent  and  exciting  agitation  and  action  in 
that  body  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  as  in  Harding's 
case  and  especially  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  each  being  regarded  as  but  a  practical  exposition  of 
the  principle  of  the  majority — -rendered  a  separate  07-p;aiiization 
indispensable  to  the  success  of  Methodism  in  the  South.  The 
truth  of  the  Declaration,  so  far  from  being  called  in  question, 
l)y  the  majority,  was  promptly  conceded  in  the  immediate 
action  the  Conference  had  upon  it,  assigning  the  Declaration 
as  the  sole  ground  or  reason  of  the  action,  which  terminated 
in  the  adoption  of  the  plan  of  separation,  under  which  we  are 
now  acting,  as  a  Convention,  and  from  the  spirit  and  intention 
of  which,  it  is  believed  to  be  the  purpose  of  the  Convention 
not  to  depart,  in  any  of  its  deliberations  or  final  acts.  Al- 
1  hough  the  action  of  this  General  Conference  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  and  the  relative  adverse  position  of  the  parties  North 
and  South,  together  with  the  irritating  and  exasperating  evils 
of  constant  agitation  and  frequent  attempts  at  legislation,  are 
made  in  the  Declaration,  the  grounds  of  the  avoM'al,  that  a 
separate  organization  was  necessary  to  the  success  of  the 
Ministry  in  the  slavcholding  States,  it  was  by  no  means  in- 
tended to  convey  the  idea,  or  make  the  impression,  that  no 
other  causes  existed  rendering  a  separate  organization  proper 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  221 

and  necessary;  but  as  the  action  of  the  Conference  on  the  suIj- 
ject  of  slavery,  was  certain  to  involve  the  Church  in  the  South, 
in  immediate  and  alarming  difficulty,  and  it  was  believed  that 
this  could  be  so  shown  to  the  majority,  as  to  induce  them  to 
consent  to  some  course  of  action,  in  remedy  of  the  evil,  the 
complaint  of  the  Declaration  was  confined  to  the  simple  topic 
of  slavery.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  case  of  Bishop  An- 
drew, although  prominently  introduced,  is  not  relied  upon  as 
exclusively  furnishing  the  data  of  this  conclusion  at  which  we 
have  arrived.  The  entire  action  of  the  General  Conference 
so  frequently  brought  to  view,  and  which  is  made  the  ground 
of  dissent  and  action,  both  in  the  Protest  and  Declaration  of 
the  Southern  Delegates,  must  be  understood  as  belonging  to 
the  premises  and  language  employed  as  including  all  the 
principles  avowed,  as  well  as  the  action  had  by  the  late  Gene- 
ral Conference  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  attempt  to  dis- 
claim the  judicial  character  of  the  action  in  Bishop  Andrew's 
case,  and  show  it  to  be  merely  advisory,  cannot  affect  the  pre- 
ceding reasoning,  for  first;  the  disclaimer  is  as  equivocal  in 
character,  as  the  original  action:  and  secondly;  the  reasoning 
in  support  of  the  disclaimer,  negatives  the  supposition  of  mere 
advice,  because  it  involves  issues  coming  legitimately  within 
the  province  of  judicial  process  and  legal  determination,  and 
thirdh';  Bishop  Andrew  is  by  the  explanation  of  the  disclaimer 
itself,  held  as  responsible  for  his  conduct,  in  view  of  the  alleged 
advice,  as  he  could  have  been  held  by  the  original  action  with- 
out the  explanation.  While,  therefore,  the  explanation  giving 
the  original  action  an  advisory  character,  notwithstanding  the 
inconsistency  involved,  fully  protects  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew 
from  even  the  shadow  of  blame  in  the  course  they  have  pursued, 
the  entire  action  in  the  case,  and  especially  when  connected  with 
the  case  of  Harding,  as  alluded  to  in  the  Declaration,  fully 
sustains  the  general  view  of  the  subject  we  have  taken  in  this 
report.  The  Southern  delegates  at  the  General  Conference,  in 
presenting  to  that  body  their  declaration  and  protest,  acted, 
and  they  continue  to  act,  as  the  representatives  of  the  South, 
under  the  full  conviction  that  the  principles  and  policy  avowed 
by  the  Xorthern  majority,  are  such  as  to  render  their  pvblic  and 
practical  renunciation  by  the  Southei'n  Methodist  Ministry  and 
people,  necessary  to  the  safet}',  not  less  than  the  success  of 
the  Church  in  the  South. 

Other  views  of  the  subject,  however,  must  claim  a  share  of 
our  attention.  Among  the  many  weighty  reasons  which  in- 
fiuence  the  Southern  Conferences  in  seeking  to  be  released  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  now  constituted,  are  the  novel  and  as  we 
think  dangerous  doctrines,  practically  avowed  and  endorsed 

19* 


222  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

by  that  body  and  the  Northern  portion  of  the  Church  generally, 
with  regard  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  the  constitu- 
tional rights  and  powers  respectively,  of  the  Episcopacy  and 
the  General  Conference.  In  relation  to  the  first,  it  is  confi- 
dently, although  most  unaccountably,  maintained  that  the 
six  short  Restrictive  Rules  which  were  adopted  in  1808,  and 
first  became  obligatory,  as  an  amendment  to  the  constitution, 
in  1812,  are  in  fact  the  true  and  onlj/  constitution  of  the  Church. 
This  single  position,  should  it  become  an  established  principle 
of  action  to  the  extent  it  found  favor  with  the  last  General 
Conference ,  must  subvert  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  It  must  be  seen  at  once,  that  the  position  leaves 
many  of  the  organic  laws  and  most  important  institutions  of 
the  Church  entirely  unprotected  and  at  the  mercy  of  a  mere 
and  ever  fluctuating  majority  of  the  General  Conference. 
Episcopacy,  for  example,  although  protected  in  the  abstract, 
in  general  terms,  may  be  entirely  superceded  or  destroyed  by 
the  simple  omission  to  elect  or  consecrate  Bishops,  neither  of 
which  is  provided  for  in  the  Restrictive  Articles.  The  whole 
itinerant  system,  except  general  supcrintendency,  is  without 
protection  in  the  Restrictive  Rules;  and  there  is  nothing  in  them 
preventing  the  Episcopacy  from  restricting  their  superintenden- 
cy  to  local  and  settled  Pastors,  rather  than  a  traveling  ministry,  and 
thus  destroying  the  most  distinctive  feature  of  Wesleyan  Meth- 
odism. So  far  as  the  Restrictive  Rules  are  concerned,  the  Annu- 
al Conferences  are  without  protection,  and  might  also  be  de- 
stroyed by  the  General  Conference  at  any  time.  If  the  new  con- 
stitutional theory  be  correct,  class  leaders  and  private  members 
are  as  eligible,  upon  the  basis  of  the  constitution,  to  a  seat  in 
the  General  Conference,  as  any  Ministers  of  the  Church.  So- 
cieties too,  instead  of  Annual  Conferences,  may  elect  delegates, 
and  may  elect  hqpnen  instead  of  ministers,  or  local  instead  of 
traveling  ministers.  Very  few  indeed  of  the  more  funda- 
mental and  distinguishing  elements  of  Methodism,  deeply  and 
imperishably  imbedded  in  the  affection  and  veneration  of  the 
Church,  and  vital  to  its  very  existence,  are  even  alluded  to  in 
the  Restrictive  Articles.  This  theory  assumes  the  self-refuted 
absurdity,  that  the  General  Conference  is  in  fact  the  govern- 
ment of  tlie  Church,  if  not  the  Church  itself.  With  no  other 
constitution  than  these  mere  restrictions  upon  the  powers  and 
rights  of  the  General  Conference,  the  government  and  Disci- 
pline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  a  system  of  or- 
ganized laws  and  well  adjusted  instrumentalities  for  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  difiusion  of  piety,  and  whose 
living  principles  of  energy  and  action  have  so  long  com- 
manded the  admiration  of  the  world,  would  soon  cease  even 
to   exist.     The   startling   assumption,  that   a   Bishop   of  the 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  223 

Methodist  Episcopal  Cliurch,  instead  of  holding  office  under 
the  constitution,  and  by  tenure  of  law,  and  the  faithful  per- 
formance of  duty,  is  nothing  in  his  character  of  Bishop,  but  a 
mere  officer  at  will,  of  the  General  Conference,  and  may  ac- 
cordingly be  deposed  at  any  time,  with  or  without  cause, 
accusation,  proof,  or  form  of  trial,  as  a  dominant  majority 
may  capriciously  elect,  or  party  interests  suggest — and  that 
the  General  Conference  may  do,  by  right,  M^hatever  is  not 
prohibited  by  the  Restrictive  Rules,  and  with  this  single  ex- 
ception, possess  power,  "  supreme  and  all-controlling,"  and 
this,  in  all  possible  forms  of  its  manifestation  legislative,  ju- 
dicial, and  executive — the  same  men  claiming  to  be  at  the 
same  time  both  the  fountain  and  functionaries  of  all  the  pow- 
ers of  government,  which  powers  xius  mingled  and  concen- 
trated into  a  common  force,  may  at  any  time  be  employed,  at 
the  prompting  of  their  own  in  erests,  caprice  or  ambition. — 
Such  wild  and  revolutionary  a;  sumptions,  so  unUke  the  Faith 
and  Discipline  of  Methodism,  ts  we  have  been  taught  them, 
we  are  compelled  to  regard  as  fraught  with  mischief  and  ruin 
to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church,  and  as  furnishing  a  strong 
additional  reason  why  we  should  avail  ourselves  of  the  war- 
rant we  now  have,  but  may  never  again  obtain,  from  the 
General  Conference,  to  "  establish  an  ecclesiastical  connex- 
ion," embracing  only  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  States. 

Without  intending  anything  more  than  a  general  specifica- 
tion of  the  disabilities,  under  which  the  Southern  part  of  the 
Church  labors,  in  view  of  existing  difficulties,  and  must  con- 
tinue to  do  so  until  they  are  removed,  we  must  not  omit  to 
state,  that  should  we  submit  to  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference,  and  decline  a  separate  organization,  it  would  be 
to  place,  and  finally  confirm  the  whole  Southern  ministry  in 
the  relation  of  an  inferior  caste,  the  effect  of  wliich,  in  spite 
of  all  effort  to  the  contrary,  would  be  such  a  relation,  if  not 
(as  we  think)  real  degradation  of  the  ministry,  as  to  destroy 
its  influence  to  a  great — a  most  fearful  extent  throughout  the 
South.  A  practical  pixiscription,  under  show  of  legal  rights 
has  long  been  exercised  towards  the  South,  Avith  regard  to  the 
higher  offices  of  the  Church,  especially  the  Episcopacy.  To 
this,  however,  the  South  submitted  with  patient  endurance,  and 
was  wiUing  further  to  submit  in  order  to  maintain  the  peace 
and  unity  of  the  Church,  while  the  princijjle  involved,  was  dis- 
avowed, and  decided  to  be  unjust  as  by  the  decision  of  the 
General  Conference  in  1840.  But  when  in  1844,  the  General 
Conference  declared  by  their  action,  without  the  forms  of  le- 
gislative or  judicial  process,  that  the  mere  providential  own- 
ership of  slave  property,  in  a  State  where  emancipation  is 


224  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

legally  prohibited  under  all  circumstances,  and  can  only  be 
eftfected  by  special  legislative  enactment,  was  hereafter  to  ope- 
rate as  a  forfeiture  of  right  in  all  similar  cases,  the  law  of  the 
Church  and  the  decision  of  the  preceding  General  Conference 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the  Southern  ministry  were 
compelled  to  realize,  that  they  were  deliberately  fixed  by  the 
brand  of  common  shame,  in  the  degrading  rela.tion  of  standing 
inferiority  to  ministers,  not  actually,  nor  yet  liable  to  be,  con- 
nected with  slavery,  and  that  they  were  published  to  the 
Church  and  the  world  as  belonging  to  a  caste  in  the  ministry, 
from  which  the  higher  offices  of  the  Church  could  never  be 
selected. 

To  submit,  under  such  circumstances,  would  have  been  a 
practical,  a  most  humiliating  recognition  of  the  inferiority  of 
caste,  attempted  to  be  fixed  upon  us  by  the  Northern  majority, 
and  would  have  justly  authorized  the  inference  of  a  want  of 
conscious  integrity  and  self-respect,  well  calculated  to  destroy 
both  the  reputation  and  influence  of  the  ministry  in  all  the 
slaveholding  States.  It  may  be  no  virtue  to  avow  it,  but  we 
confess  we  have  no  humility  courting  the  grace  of  such  a 
baptism.  The  higher  objects,  therefore,  of  the  Christian  Min- 
istry, not  less  than  conscious  right  and  self-respect,  demanded 
resistance  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  Ministry  and  Church, 
and  these  unite  with  other  reasons,  in  vindicating  the  plea  of 
necessity,  upon  which  the  meeting  and  action  of  this  Conven- 
tion are  based,  with  the  consent  and  approval  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  variety 
of  interests  involved,  renders  it  necessary  that  the  brief  view 
of  the  subject  we  are  allowed  to  take,  be  varied  accordingly. 

Unless  the  Southern  Conferences  organize  as  proposed,  it  is 
morally  certain,  in  view  of  the  evidence  before  the  Committee, 
that  the  Gospel  now  regularly  and  successfully  dispensed  by 
the  ministers  of  these  Conferences  to  about  a  million  of  slaves, 
in  their  various  fields  of  missionary  enterprise  and  pastoral 
charge,  must,  to  a  great  extent,  be  withheld  from  them,  and 
immense  masses  of  this  unfortunate  class  of  our  fellow  beings 
be  left  to  perish,  as  the  result  of  Church  interference  with  the 
civil  affairs  and  relations  of  the  country. 

The  Committee  are  compelled  to  believe,  that  the  mere  di- 
vision of  jm'isdiction,  as  authorized  by  the  General  Conference, 
cannot  aflect  either  the  moral  or  legal  unity  of  the  great 
American  family  of  Christians,  known  as  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  this  opinion  is  concurred  in  by  the  ablest 
jurists  of  the  country.  We  do  nothing  but  what  we  are  express- 
ly authorized  to  do  by  the  supreme,  or  rather  highest  legislative 
power  of  the  Church.  Would  the  Church  authorize  us  to  do 
wrong?     The  division  relates  only  to  the  power  of  general 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  225 

jurisdiction,  which  it  is  not  proposed  to  destroy  or  even  reduce, 
but  simply  to  invest  it  in  two  great  organs  of  Church  action 
and  control,  instead  of  one  as  at  present.  Such  a  change  in 
the  present  system  of  general  control,  cannot  disturb  the 
moral  unity  of  the  Church,  for  it  is  strictly  an  agreed  modijica- 
tion  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  and  such  agreement 
and  consent  of  parties  must  preclude  the  idea  of  disunion. 
In  view  of  wluit  is  the  alleged  disunion  predicated?  Is  the 
purpose  and  act  of  becoming  a  separate  organization  proof 
of  disunion  or  want  of  proper  Church  unity?  This  cannot  be 
urged  with  any  show  of  consistency,  inasmuch  as  "  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled,"  that 
is  to  say,  the  Church  through  only  its  constitutional  organ  of 
action,  on  all  subjects  involving  the  power  of  legislation,  not 
only  agreed  to  the  separate  organization  South,  but  made  full 
constitutional  provision  for  carrying  it  into  eflect.  It  is  a  sepa- 
ration by  consent  of  parties,  under  the  highest  authority  of 
the  Church.  Is  it  intended  to  maintain  that  the  unity  of  the 
Church  depends  upon  the  modal  uniformity  of  the  jurisdiction 
in  question?  If  this  be  so,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
has  lost  its  unity  at  several  different  times.  The  general  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Church  has  undergone  modifications,  at 
several  different  times,  not  less  vital,  if  not  greatly  more  so, 
than  the  one  now  proposed.  The  high  conventional  powers, 
of  which  we  are  so  often  reminded,  exercised  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were  in  the  hands  of 
a  Conference  of  unordained  lay  preachers,  under  the  sole  super- 
intendance  of  an  appointee  of  Mr.  Wesley.  This  was  the  first 
General  Conference  type  and  original  form  of  the  jurisdiction  in 
question.  The  jurisdictional  power  now  proposed  by  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  was  for  years  exercised  by  small  Annual  Confer- 
ences, without  any  defined  boundaries,  and  acting  separately  on 
all  measures  proposed  for  their  determination.  This  general 
power  of  jurisdiction  next  passed  into  the  handsof  the  Bishops' 
Council,  consisting  of  some  ten  persons,  where  it  remained  for  a 
term  of  years.  Next  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  whole  itiner- 
ant Ministry,  in  full  connection,  and  was  exercised  by  them,  in 
collective  action,  as  a  General  Conference  of  the  whole  body, 
met  together  at  the  same  time.  The  power  was  afterwards 
vested  in  the  whole  body  of  traveling  Elders,  and  from  thence 
finally  passed  into  the  hands  of  Delegates,  elected  by  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  to  meet  and  act  quadrennially  as  a  General 
Conference,  under  constitutional  restrictions  and  limitations. 
Here  are  several  successive  re-organizations  of  General  Con- 
ference jurisdiction,  each  involving  a  much  more  material 
change  than  that  contemplated  in  the  General  Conference 
plan,  by  authority  of  which,  this  Convention  is  about  to  erect 


226  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

the  sixteen  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States 
into  a  separate  organization.  We  change  no  principle  in  the 
existing  theory  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction.  We  dis- 
tinctly recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  a  delegated  General  Con- 
ference, receiving  its  appointment  and  authority  from  the 
whole  constituency  of  Annual  Conferences.  The  only  change 
in  fact  or  in  form,  will  be,  that  the  Delegates  of  the  "  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,"  as  authorized  in  the 
plan  of  separation,  will  meet  in  one  General  Conference  as- 
sembly of  their  own,  and  act  in  behalf  only  of  their  own  con- 
stituency, and  in  the  regulation  of  their  own  affairs,  con- 
sistently with  the  good  faith  and  fealty  they  owe  the  authority 
and  laws  of  the  several  States  in  which  they  reside,  without 
interfering  with  affairs  beyond  their  jurisdiction,  or  suffering 
foreign  interference  with  their  own.  And  in  proceeding  to  do 
this,  we  have  all  the  authority  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  to  confer.  We  have  also  further  example 
and  precedent  in  the  history  of  Methodism,  to  show  that  there 
is  nothing  irregular  or  inconsistent  with  Church  order  or  unity 
in  the  separation  proposed.  The  great  Wesleyan  Methodist 
family,  everywhere  one  in  faith  and  practice,  already  exists 
under  several  distinct  and  unconnected  jurisdictions — there 
is  no  jurisdictional  or  connectional  union  between  them; 
and  yet  it  has  never  been  pretended,  that  these  several  dis- 
tinct organizations  were  in  any  sense  inconsistent  with  Church 
unity.  If  the  Southern  Conferences  proceed,  then,  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  another  distinct  jurisdiction,  without  any 
change  of  doctrine  or  discipline,  except  in  matters  necessary 
to  the  mere  economical  adjustment  of  the  system,  will  it  fur- 
nish any  reason  for  supposing  that  the  real  unity  of  the  Church 
is  affected  by  what  all  must  perceive  to  be  a  simple  division 
of  jurisdiction?  Wlien  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States  are  separately  organized  as  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection, they  Mdll  only  be  what  the  General  Conference  au- 
tliorized  them  to  be.  Can  this  be  irregular  or  subversive  of 
Church  unity?  Acting  under  the  provisional  plan  of  separa- 
tion they  must,  although  a  separate  organization,  remain  in 
essential  union  with,  and  be  part  and  parcel  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  every  scriptural  and  moral  view  of  the 
subject;  for  what  they  do  is  with  the  full  consent,  and  has  the 
official  sanction  of  the  Church  as  represented  in  the  General 
Conference.  The  jurisdiction  we  are  about  to  establish  and 
assert  as  separate  and  independent,  is  expressly  declined  and 
ceded  by  the  General  Conference  as  originally  its  own,  to  the 
Southern  Conferences,  for  the  specific  purpose  of  being  estab- 
lished and  asserted  in  the  manner  proposed.  All  idea  of  se- 
cession, or  an  organization  alien  in  right  or  relation  to  the 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  227 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is  forever  precluded  by  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  the  authorized  plan  of  separation.  In  what- 
ever sense  we  are  separatists  or  sccedei's,  we  are  such  by  au- 
thority— the  highest  authority  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  To  whatever  extent  or  in  whatever  aspect  we  are 
not  true  and  faithful  ministers  and  members  of  that  Church, 
such  delinquency  or  misfortune  is  authenticated  by  her  act 
and  approval,  and  she  declares  us  to  be  "without  blame." 
"  Ministers  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  without  blame,  attach  them- 
selves to  the  Church  South."  Bishops,  elders,  and  deacons, 
come  into  the  Southern  organization  at  their  own  election, 
under  permission  from  the  General  Conference,  not  only  ac- 
credited as  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chm'ch,  but 
with  credentials  limiting  the  exercise  of  their  functions  within 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  CltiLrch.  Is  it  conceivable  that  the 
General  Conference,  would  so  act  and  hold  such  language  in 
relation  to  an  ecclesiastical  connection  which  was  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  secession  from  the  Church?  Does  not  such  act 
and  language,  and  the  whole  plan  of  separation,  rather  show 
that,  as  the  South  had  asked,  so  the  General  Conference  in- 
tended to  authorize,  a  simple  division  of  its  own  jurisdiction, 
and  nothing  more? 

All  idea  of  secession  or  schism  or  loss  of  right  or  title,  as 
ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  being  precluded 
by  the  specific  grant  or  authority  under  which  we  act,  as  well 
as  for  other  reasons  assigned,  many  considerations  might  be 
urged,  strongly  suggesting  the  Jitncss  and  propriety  of  the 
separate  jurisdiction  contemplated,  rendered  necessary^  as  we 
have  seen,  upon  other  and  different  grounds;  and  among  these 
the  increased  value  of  the  representative  principle  likely  to 
be  secm'ed  by  the  change,  is  by  no  means  unworthy  of  notice. 
At  the  first  representative  General  Conference,  thirty-three 
years  ago,  each  delegate  represented  five  traveling  ministers 
and  about  two  thousand  members,  and  the  body  was  of  con- 
venient size  for  the  transaction  of  business.  At  the  late  Gen- 
eral Conference,  each  delegate  was  the  representative  of 
twenty-one  ministers  and  more  than  five  thousand  members, 
and  the  body  was  inconveniently  large  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
liberatioil  and  action.  Should  the  number  of  delegates  in  the 
Cieneral  (conference  be  increased  with  the  probable  growth  of 
the  Church,  the  body  will  soon  become  utterly  unwieldy. — 
Should  the  number  be  reduced,  while  the  ministry  and  mem- 
bership are  multiplying,  the  representative  principle  would 
become  to  be  little  more  than  nominal,  and  in  the  same  pro- 
portion, without  practical  value.  Beside  that  the  proposed 
re-organization  of  jurisdiction  will  remedy  this  evil,  at  least  to 


228  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION  OF  THE 

a  great  extent,  it  will  result  in  the  saving  of  much  time  and 
expense  and  useful  services  to  the  Church,  connected  with  the 
travel  and  protracted  sessions  of  the  General  Conference,  not 
only  as  it  regards  the  delegates,  but  also  the  bench  of  Bishops, 
whose  general  oversight  might  become  much  more  minute  and 
pastoral  in  its  character,  by  means  of  such  an  arrangement. 
When,  in  1808,  the  Annual  Conferences  resolved  upon  chang- 
ing the  form  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  the  precise 
reasons  we  have  just  noticed,  were  deemed  suflicient  ground 
and  motive  for  the  change  introduced,  and  as  we  are  seeking 
only  a  similar  change  of  jurisdiction,  although  for  other  pur- 
poses as  well  as  this,  the  facts  to  which  we  ask  attention,  are 
certainly  worthy  of  being  taken  into  the  estimate  of  advan- 
tages likely  to  result  from  a  separate  and  independent  organi- 
zation, especially  as  the  ministry  and  membership,  since  1808, 
have  increased  full  seven  himdrcd  j)er  centum,  and  should  they 
continue  to  increase,  in  something  like  the  same  ratio,  for 
thirty  years  to  come,  under  the  present  system  of  General  Con- 
ference jurisdiction,  some  such  change  as  that  authorized  by 
the  late  General  Conference  must  be  resorted  to,  or  the  Church 
resign  itself  to  the  virtual  extinction  of  the  representative 
principle,  as  an  important  clement  of  government  action. 

In  establishing  a  separate  jurisdiction  as  before  defined  and 
explained,  so  far  from  alfecting  the  moral  oneness  and  integ- 
rity of  the  great  Methodist  body  in  America,  the  effect  will 
be  to  secure  a  very  different  result.  In  resolving  upon  a  sepa- 
rate Connection,  as  we  are  about  to  do,  the  one  great  and 
controlling  motive  is  to  restore  and  perpetuate  the  peace  and 
unity  of  the  Church.  At  present  we  have  neither,  nor  are  we 
likely  to  have,  should  the  Southern  and  Northern  Conferences 
remain  in  connectional  relation,  as  heretofore.  Inferring  effects 
from  causes  known  to  be  in  existence  and  active  operation, 
agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  is  certain  to  continue,  and 
frequent  action  in  the  General  Conference  is  equally  certain, 
and  the  result,  as  heretofore,  will  be  excitement  and  discon- 
tent, aggression  and  resistance.  Should  the  South  retire  and 
decline  all  further  conflict,  by  the  erection  of  the  Southern  Con- 
ferences into  a  separate  jurisdiction,  as  authorized  by  the 
General  Conference  plan,  agitation  in  the  Church  cannot  be 
])rought  in  contact  with  the  South,  and  the  former  irritation 
and  evils  of  the  controversy  must,  to  a  great  extent,  cease,  or 
at  any  rate  so  lose  their  disturbing  force  as  to  become  com- 
paratively harmless.  Should  the  A^orthern  Church  continue  to 
discuss  and  agitate,  it  will  be  within  their  own  borders  and 
among  themselves,  and  the  evil  effects  upon  the  South  must, 
to  say  the  least,  be  greatly  lessened.  At  present,  the  consoli- 
dation of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  under  the  jurisdictional 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  220 

control  of  one  General  Conference,  always  giving-  a  decided 
Northern  majority,  places  it  in  the  power  of  that  majority  to 
manage  and  control  the  interests  of  the  Church,  in  tlie  shivc- 
holding  States,  as  they  see  proper,  and  we  have  no  means  of 
protection  against  the  evils  certain  to  be  inilicted  upon  us,  if  we 
judge  the  future  from  the  past.  The  whole  ])ower  of  legislation 
is  in  the  General  Conference,  and  as  that  body  is  now  constitu- 
ted, the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  South  are  perfectly  powerless 
in  the  resistance  of  wrong,  and  have  no  alternative  left  them  but 
unconditional  submission.  And  such  submission,  to  the  views 
and  action  of  the  Northern  majority  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
it  is  now  demonstrated  must  bring  disaster  and  ruin  upon 
Southern  Methodism,  by  rendering  the  Church  an  object  of 
distrust  on  the  part  of  the  State.  In  this  way,  the  assumed 
conservative  power  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  witli  re- 
gard to  the  civil  union  of  the  States,  is  to  a  great  extent 
destroyed,  and  we  are  compelled  to  believe  that  it  is  the  in- 
tcrest  and  becomes  the  duh/  of  the  Church  in  the  South  to  seek 
to  exert  such  conservative  injluencc  in  some  other  form;  and  alter 
the  most  mature  deliberation  and  careful  examination  of  the 
whole  subject,  we  know  of  nothing  so  likely  to  effect  the  ob-\ 
ject,  as  the  jurisdictional  separation  of  the  great  Church  parlies, 
unfortunately  involved  in  a  religious  and  ecclesiastical  con- 
troversy about  an  affair  of  State — a  question  of  civil  policy, 
over  which  the  Church  has  no  control,  and  with  whicli 
it  is  believed,  she  has  no  right  to  interfere.  Among  the 
nearly  five  hundred  thousand  ministers  and  members  of  the 
Conferences  represented  in  this  Convention,  we  do  not 
know  one  not  dceph/  and  iMensely  interested  in  the  safety  and 
perpetuity  of  the  National  Union,  nor  can  we  for  a  moment  hesi- 
tate to  pledge  them  all,  against  any  course  of  action  or  policy,  not 
calculated,  in  their  judgment,  to  render  that  union  as  immorttd  as 
the  hopes  of  patriotism  would  have  it  to  be! 

Before  closing  the  summary  view  of  the  whole  subject  taken 
in  this  report,  we  cannot  refrain  from  a  brief  notice  of  the 
relations  and  interests  of  Southern  border  Conferences.  These, 
it  must  be  obvious,  are  materially  difierent  from  those  of  the 
more  Southern  Conferences.  They  do  not,  for  the  present, 
feel  the  pressure  of  the  strong  necessity  impelling  the  Soutli 
proper,  to  immediate  separation.  They  are,  however,  involv- 
ed witli  regard  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  controversy,  and 
committed  to  well  defined  principles,  in  the  same  way,  and  to 
the  same  extent,  with  the  most  Southern  Conferences.  They 
have  with  almost  peifect  unanimity,  by  public  official  acts, 
protested  against  the  entire  action  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  in  reference  to  the  rehi- 
tive  rights  and  powers  of  Episcopacy  and  the  General  Confcr- 

20 


236 


HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 


r-ncc,  as  not  only  uncnnstituikmal,  but  Tevohiiionarij,  and,  thore- 
I'ore,  dangerous  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church.  They  have 
solemnly  decLared,  by  approving  and  endorsing  the  declaration, 
the  protest  and  address  of  the  Southern  delegates,  that  the  ob- 
jects of  their  ministry  cannot  be  accomplished,  under  the  ex- 
isting jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference,  without  repara- 
tion lor  past  injury  and  security  against  future  aggression,  and 
unless  the  border  Conferences  have  good  and  substantial  rea- 
son to  believe  such  reparation  and  security  not  only  probable, 
but  so  certain  as  to  remove  reasonable  doubt,  they  have,  so  far 
as  principle  and  pledge  are  concerned,  the  same  motive  for 
action  with  the  Conferences  South  of  them.  Against  the 
principles  thus  avowed  by  every  one  of  the  Conferences  in 
question,  the  anti-slavery  and  abolition  of  the  North  haAe, 
through  official  Cliurch  organs,  declared  the  most  open  and 
undisguised  hostility,  and  these  Conferences  are  reduced  to 
the  necessity  of  deciding  upon  adJiercnce  to  the  principles  they 
have  oflicially  avowed,  or  of  a  resort  to  expediency  to  adjust 
difficulties  in  some  unknown  form,  which  they  have  said  could 
only  be  adjusted  by  substantial  reparation  for  past  injury,  and 
good  and  sufficient  warrant  against  future  aggression.  The 
queslion  is  certainly  one  of  no  common  interest.  Should  any 
of  the  border  Conferences,  or  societies  South,  affiliate  with  the 
North,  the  etfect,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  v^dll  be  to  transfer  the 
seat  of  war  from  tlie  remoter  South,  to  these  border  districts; 
and  what,  we  ask,  will  be  the  security  of  these  districts  against 
the  moral  ravages  of  such  a  war?  What  protection  or  secu- 
rity will  the  discipline  or  the  conservatism  of  the  middle  Con- 
ferences afford?  Of  what  avail  were  these  at  the  last  General 
Conference,  and  has  cilhcr  more  inlluence  noAV  than  then? 
The  controversy  of  a  large  and  rapidly  increasing  portion  of 
the  North,  is  not  so  much  wdth  the  t^huth  as  with  the  disciplivc^ 
because  it  tolerates  slavery  in  any  form  whatever,  and  shouKl 
the  Southern  Conferences  remain  under  the  present  common 
jurisdiction,  or  any  slaveholding  portions  of  the  South  unite; 
in  the  Northern  Connection  in  the  event  of  division,  it  requires 
very  little  discernment  to  see  that  this  controversy  will  never 
cease  until  every  slaveholder  or  every  Abolitionist  is  out  of 
the  connection.  Beside,  the  border  Conferences  have  a  great 
and  most  delicate  interest  at  stake,  in  view  of  their  territorial 
and  civil  and  political  relations,  which  it  certainly  behooves 
them  to  weigh  well  and  examine  with  care  in  coming  to  the 
Hnal  conclusion,  which  is  to  identify  them  with  the  North  or 
the  South.  Border  districts  going  with  the  North,  after  and 
notwithstanding  the  action  of  the  border  Conferences,  must,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  as  found  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
aiiiliate,  to  a  great  extent,  with  the  entire  aggregate  of  North- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  231 

ern  anti-slavery  and  abolition,  as  now  embarked  against  tiie 
interests  of  the  South— as  also  with  all  the  recent  othcial  vio- 
lations of  right,  of  law,  and  discipline,  against  which  the 
South  is  now  contending.  In  doing  this,  they  must  of  ne- 
cessity, if  we  have  reasoned  correctl}',  elect,  and  contriljutc 
their  intluence  to  retain  in  the  connection  of  their  choice  all 
the  principles  and  elements  of  strife  and  discord  wliich  iiavc 
so  long  and  fearfully  convulsed  the  Church.  Will  this  be  tiic 
election  of  Southern  border  sections  and  districts,  or  will  thi^v 
remain  where,  by  location,  civil  and  political  ties  and  relations, 
and  their  own  avowed  principles,  they  properly  belong,  firmly 
planted  upon  the  long  and  well  tried  platform  of  the  discipline 
of  our  common  choice,  and  from  which  the  Methodism  of  the 
South  has  never  manifested  any  disposition  to  swerve?  To 
the  discipline  the  South  has  always  been  loyal.  By  it  she  ha^^ 
abided  in  every  trial.  Jealously  has  slie  cherished  and  guarded 
that  "form  of  sound  words" — the  faith,  the  ritual,  and  the 
government  of  the  Church.  It  v.^as  Southern  defence  against 
Northern  invasion  of  the  discipline,  which  brought  on  the  pre- 
sent struggle;  and  upon  the  discipline,  the  whole  discipline, 
the  South  proposes  to  organise,  under  authority  of  the  General 
Conference,  a  separate  connection  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  This  result,  from  llrst  to  last,  has  been  consented  to 
on  the  part  of  the  South  with  the  greatest  reluctance. 

After  the  struggle  came  on,  at  the  late  General  Conference, 
the  vSouthern  Delegates,  as  they  had  often  done  before,  mani- 
fested the  most  earnest  desire,  and  did  all  in  their  powei-.  U\ 
maintain  jurisdictional  ..union  with  the  North,  ^rithoiit  sacrifi- 
cing the  interests  of  the  South:  when  this  was  found  im- 
practicable, a  Conncctionnl  union  ^vas  proposed,  and  the  rt^ec- 
tion  of  this,  by  the  North,  led  to  the  ])rojcction  and  adoption  of 
the  present  General  Conference  plan  of  separation.  Every 
overture  of  compromise,  every  plan  of  reconciliation  and 
adjustment,  regarded  as  at  all  eligible,  or  likely  to  succeed, 
was  offered  by  the  South  and  rejected  by  the  N^orth.  Ail  sub- 
sequent attempts  at  compromise,  have  failed  in  like  manner, 
and  the  probability  of  any  such  adjustment,  if  not  extinct,  is 
lessening  every  day,  and  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  States  are  thus  left  to  take  their  position  upon  the 
ground  assigned  them  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  as  a 
distinct  ecclesiastical  Connection,  ready  and  most  willing  to 
treat  with  the  Northern  division  of  the  Church,  at  any  time,  iji 
view  of  adjusting  the  dilliculties  of  this  controversy,  upon  terms 
and  principles,  which  may  be  safe  and  satisfactory  to  both. 

Such  we  regard  as  the  tntc  position  of  the  Anniud  Confer- 
ences represented  in  this  Convention.  Thorfoir,  in  vierr  of  (dt 
the  principles  and  interests  involved,  appealing  to  the  AlmiiilUjf 


232  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

srarc/icr  of  hearts,  for  the  sincerity  of  our  motives,  and  hiunhly  in- 
voking the  Divine  blessing  upon  our  action, 

Be  it  Resolved,  by  the  Delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodic  Episcopcd  Church,  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
in  Genercd  Convention  assembled.  That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and 
necessary  to  erect  the  Annual  Conferences,  represented  in  this 
Convention,  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connection,  separate 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  as  at  present  constituted;  and,  ac- 
cordingly, we,  the  Delegates  of  said  Annual  Conferences,  act- 
ing under  the  provisional  plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the 
(■(•n(u-al  Conference  of  1844,  do  solemnly  r/ec/a/r  the  jurisdiction 
liitherto  exercised  over  said  Annual  Conferences,  by  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  entirely 
dissolved;  and  that  said  Annual  Conferences  shall  be,  and  they 
hereby  eu-e  constituted  a  separate  ecclesiastical  Connnection, 
under  the  provisional  plan  of  separation  aforesaid,  and  based 
upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  com- 
prehending the  doctrines,  and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical,  and 
ceonomical  rules  and  regulations  of  said  Discipline,  except 
only,  in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  may  be  necessary  to  a 
distinct  organization,  and  to  be  knowm  by  the  style  and  title 
of  the  Methodist  Episcoped  Church,  South. 

Resolved,  That  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  be,  and  they  are 
hereby  respectfully  and  cordially  requested  by  this  Convention 
to  unite  with,  and  become  regular  and  constitutional  Bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  upon  the  basis  of 
the  plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference. 

R( solved,  That  this  Convention  request  the  Bishops  presi- 
ding at  the  ensuing  sessions  of  the  border  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  incorporate  into  the 
aforesaid  Conferences  any  societies  or  stations  adjoining  the 
lin(^  of  division,  provided  such  societies  or  stations  by  the  ma- 
jority of  the  members,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  plan 
of  separation,  aforesaid,  request  such  an  arrangement. 

Resolved,  That  answer  the  2d  of  3d  Section,  Chapter  1st,  of 
th(!  book  of  Discipline,  be  so  altered  and  amended  as  to  read 
as  follows:  "  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  1st  of 
May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1846,  in  the  town  of  Petersburg, Va., 
and  thenceforward,  in  the  month  of  April  or  May,  once  in  four 
years  successively,  and  in  such  place  and  on  such  day  as  shall 
be  tixed  on  by  the  preceding  General  Conference,"  etc. 

Resolved,  That  the  first  answer  in  the  same  chapter,  be  al- 
tered by  striking  out  the  word  "  twenty-one^''  and  inserting  in 
its  place  the  word  '■'■  fourteen ^  so  as  to  entitle  each  Annual 
Conference  to  one  Delegate  for  every  fourteen  members. 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed,  whose 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  '^Joo 

duty  it  shall  be  to  prepare  and  report  to  the  General  CoiiCcr- 
ence  of  1846,  a  revised  copy  of  the  present  J)isciplin<',  a\  itfi 
such  changes  as  are  necessary  to  conform  it  to  the  organization 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Resolved,  That  while  we  cannot  abandon  or  compromise 
the  principles  of  action  upon  Avhich  we  proceed  to  a  sejiarate 
organization  in  the  South;  nevertheless,  cherishing  a  sincere 
desire  to  maintain  Christian  union  and  fraternal  intercourse . 
with  the  Church  North,  we  shall  always  be  ready,  kindly  and 
respectfully  to  entertain,  and  duly  and  carefully  consider,  any 
proposition  or  plan,  having  for  its  object,  the  union  of  the  two 
great  bodies,  in  the  North  and  South,  whether  such  proposed 
union  be  jurisdictional  or  conncctional. 


20' 


234  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 


CHAPTER  V. 

Embracing  events  subsequent  to  the  adjournment  of  the  Louisville 

Convention. 

The  meeting  of  a  Convention  of  Delegates,  from  the  South- 
ern and  South-western  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  was  a  novel  proceeding  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  and  consequently  attracted  great  attention.  Vast 
numbers  attended  its  session,  and  many  from  a  great  distance, 
to  observe  its  doings  and  witness  the  result  of  its  deliberations. 
There  were  many  speeches  of  uncommon  ability  delivered, 
the  interests  of  the  public  mind  was  kept  quickly  alive  through- 
out the  protracted  session,  and  it  was  quite  evident  that  an 
impression  deep  and  wide  had  been  made  on  the  community 
in  favor  of  the  Southern  cause. 

This  result  was  readily  foreseen  by  the  leading  men  of  the 
North,  and  measures  were  taken  in  advance  to  counteract  it. 
The  opposing  editors,  (one  of  whom  had,  in  the  General  Con- 
ference, advocated  division  in  the  abstract — as  necessary  apart 
from  the  slavery  controversy,  and  another  had  advocated  a 
positive  boundary,  beyond  which — even  on  the  border — no 
one  might  pass,  as  the  only  way  to  secure  peace)  labored  to 
impress  the  public  mind  unfavorably  with  regard  to  the  Con- 
vention. It  was  contended  that  the  people  very  generally 
were  opposed  to  it,  and  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  preach- 
ers were  with  them  in  this  opposition; — that  the  divisive  move- 
ments were  led  on'  by  a  few  ambitious  leaders  seeking  their 
own  aggrandizement; — that  the  proceeding  was  irregular  and 
unmcthodistical,  as  the  General  Conference  had  not  authoriz- 
ed it,  .&c.  This  last  argument,  considering  its  want  of  sound- 
ness, had  considerable  effect  for  a  time.  The  more  considerate, 
however,  soon  came  to  perceive  that  as  the  General  Confer- 
ence had  granted  to  the  South  the  right  to  decide  on  the  nc- 
ccssity  of  division,  that  grant  must  necessarily  embrace  the 
right  to  take  such  action  as  would  enable  them  to  make  up 
that  important  decision  in  the  best  and  most  satisfactory 
manner. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  235 

It  was  also  predicted  that  there  would  be  great  discord  in 
the  Convention,  and  it  was  doubted  whether  any  course  could 
be  suggested  which  would  secure  the  acquiescence  of  even  a 
majority  of  that  body.  And  this  conjecture  received  some  ap- 
parent strength  from  the  fact,  that  though  all  the  delegates 
elected  disapproved  the  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
and  rejected  the  principle  involved  in  it  as  unsound  and  dan- 
gerous, yet  some  of  them  were  not  convinced,  at  the  time  of 
assembling,  that  present  separation  was  absolutely  necessary, 
and  therefore  inclined  to  defer  final  action,  either  until  the 
meeting  of  the  regular  General  Conference  of  1848,  or  until  a 
special  meeting  of  that  body  could  be  called  to  attempt  an 
adjustment  of  the  difficulty; — or  to  propose  terms  on  which 
they  \vould  agree  to  remain  in  connection  with  the  North,  and 
leave  that  portion  of  the  Church  to  accept  or  reject  the  terms 
■ — to  perpetuate  the  union  or  eifectuate  the  separation.  When 
however,  the  Convention,  Avith  but  three  exceptions,  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  separation  was  absolutely  necessary,  and 
necessary  now,  and  when  those  three,  after  casting  their  Aotes, 
cordially  feel  in  and  cheerfully  co-operated  with  the  majority, 
the  very  unanimity  of  the  action  produced  strengthened  con- 
fidence in  the  community,  and  many  who  had  previously 
doubted,  hesitated,  or  even  opposed,  now  acquiesced  and  came 
promptly  forward  to  sustain  the  course  of  the  Convention. 

The  question  was  now  considered  as  finally  settled;  and 
from  this  time  the  prevailing  desire  of  the  South — editors, 
ministers,  and  people — evidently  was  to  discontinue  the  con- 
flict and  cultivate  peace  with  our  Northern  brethren;  and  if 
we  could  not  unite  with  them  under  one  jurisdiction,  to  unite 
in  one  spirit  of  forbearance  and  love.  And  this  sentiment 
was  reciprocated  on  the  part  of  many  Northern  brethren,  and 
even  those  Church  papers  from  which  the  South  originally  ex- 
pected least. 

Not  so  the  leading  Church  papers  of  the  Northern  con- 
nection. They  set  themselves  diligently  to  work  to  prove 
to  the  Avorld,  that  the  Southern  organization  was  an  actual 
secession  from  the  Church,  "  if  not  indeed  a  scisrii  of  the  worst 
sort;" — that  all  who  did  not  go  with  the  Northern  Connection, 
whether  located  North  or  South,  were  no  longer  members  of 
tlie  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  of  a  jiro-slavcry  Church, 
the  object  of  which  was  to  strengthen  slavery  and  encourage 
and  protect  slaveholding  in  the  ministry; — that  the  Convention 
was  not  held  in  accordance  with  the  plan  of  separation; — that 
tlie  Plan  itself  was  unconstitutional  and  void.  They  accord- 
ingly encouraged  all  in  the  South,  over  whom  they  could 
exert  any  influence,  to  adhere  to  the  Northern  division  of  the 
Church,  and  holding  out  as  inducements  the  declaration  that 


236  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

the  Church  property  in  the  South,  purchased  with  the  money- 
and  for  the  accommodation  of  Southern  societies,  would  all 
fall  into  the  hands  of  those — however  few — who  should  adhere 
to  the  North,  and  assuring  such,  that  the  North  would  send 
them  preachers  and  amply  provide  for  their  supply.  Assum- 
ing that  there  were  many  disaffected  ministers  in  the  South, 
they  urged  such  to  an  utter  disregard  of  the  plan  of  separa- 
tion, by  forming  themselves  into  a  separate  Conference  where 
they  were  in  a  minority,  and  assuring  them  that  however  few 
in  number,  they  would  be  recognized  as  the  true  Annual  Con- 
ference— of  Kentucky,  Missouri,  or  Holston,  as  the  case  might 
be, — and  would  draw  the  dividend  from  the  Book  Concern 
due  the  Conference  whose  name  they  were  recommended  to 
assume. 

Bishop  Soule,  as  has  been  seen  in  the  preceding  Chapter,  had 
intimated  to  the  Convention  his  purpose  to  pursue  the  plan  of 
episcopal  visitation  agreed  on  in  1844,  until  the  meeting  of 
the  first  General  Conference  of  the  Southern  Connection, — 
authorizing  the  opinion  that  he  would  then  fully  identify  him- 
self with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  This  gave 
great  offence  in  the  same  quarters,  and  he  was  denounced  in 
more  unmeasured  terms  of  censure  than  had  been  so  liberally 
heaped  on  Bishop  Andrew.  He  was  charged  as  the  prime 
agent  in  the  whole  divisive  movement.  It  was  declared  that 
he  had,  by  the  act  above  alluded  to,  seceded  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  and  was  no  longer  capable  of  ex- 
ercising episcopal  functions  in  it.  In  the  plan  of  episcopal 
visitation  for  1845,  several  Conferences  in  non-slaveholding 
States  had  been  assigned  to  him.  Those  Conferences  were 
earnestly  entreated  not  to  receive  him  as  their  presiding  Bishop, 
as  no  act  done  under  his  administration  would  be  legal — no 
ordination  of  his  valid.  In  this  course  the  editors  were  zeal- 
ously and  even  violently  supported  by  several  ministers  of  age 
and  standing,  particularly  Messrs.  Cartwright  and  Akers,  of 
Illinois,  and  Mr.  Finley  of  the  Ohio  Conference.  But  while 
Bishop  Soule  had  work  assigned  him  on  the  episcopal  plan  in 
Northern  Conferences,  Bishops  Morris  and  Janes — who  \\^ere 
regarded  as  Northern  Bishops  in  good  standing — had  work  in 
the  South,  and  whether  it  was  expedient  for  them  to  preside 
in  Conferences,  denounced  as  seceders,  became  a  grave 
question. 

Matters  had  now  reached  such  a  crisis  that  it  was  wisely 
deemed  advisable  to  convoke  a  council  of  the  Bishops  to  de- 
termine on  the  proper  course  to  pursue,  and  especially  to  settle 
the  principles  of  their  own  administration.  This  council  met 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  July  2d,  1845,  and  was  attended  by 
Bishops  lledding,  Waugh,  Morris,  and  Janes.     Bishop  Hamline 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  237 

sent  his  opinion  in  writing  on  the  points  to  be  acted  on  by  the 
Council,  Bishop  Soule  did  not.  attend,  and  Bishop  Andrew, 
being  suspended,  was  not  invited.  There  was  some  contra- 
riety of  opinion  in  the  council  on  some  points.  Bishops  Morris 
and  Janes  preferred  carrying  out  the  original  plan  of  episcopal 
visitation,  though  the  work  of  both,  for  1845,  lay  within  the 
Southern  Connection,  which  in  high  places  had  been  denounced 
as  a  secession.  But  a  majorit}^  deemed  it  more  prudent,  under 
the  circumstances,  to  form  a  new  plan  of  visitation,  in  which 
the  Southern  Connection  was  not  included.  The  council, 
however,  resolved  not  to  change,  or  in  any  way  interfere  with 
Bishop  Soule's  appointments  to  preside  in  Northern  Confer- 
ences, but  provided  that  if  he  should  desire  to  be  released  from 
them,  they  should  be  attended  by  Bishop  jMorris.  Besides 
agreeing  on  a  new  plan  of  visitation,  the  Bishops  adopted  the 
following  resolutions,  intended  for  the  government  of  their  own 
administration: 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  plan  reported  by  the  select  Committee 
of  Nine  at  the  last  General  Conference  and  adopted  by  that 
body  in  regard  to  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  should 
.such  a  course  be  found  necessary  by  the  Annual  Conferences 
in  the  slaveholding  States,  is  regarded  by  us  as  of  binding 
obligation  in  the  premises,  so  far  as  our  administration  is 
concerned. 

2.  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  ascertain  fairly  the  desire  and 
purpose  of  those  societies  bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  in 
regard  to  their  adherence  to  the  Church,  North  or  South,  due 
notice  should  be  given  of  the  time,  place,  and  object  of  meet- 
ing for  the  above  purpose,  at  which  a  Chairman  and  Secretary 
should  be  appointed,  and  the  sense  of  all  the  members  present 
be  ascertained,  and  the  same  be  forwarded  to  the  Bishop  who 
may  preside  at  the  ensuing  Annual  Conferences;  or  forward  to 
said  presiding  Bishop  a  written  request  to  be  recognized  and 
have  a  preacher  sent  them,  with  the  names  of  the  majority 
appended  thereto. 

A  true  copy.  Edmund  S.  Janes,  Sec'y. 

By  these  w  ise  and  prudent  resolves  the  Bishops  have  entitled 
themselves  to  the  gratitude  of  the  Church, — have  shown  that 
they  are  the  true  conservatives,  and  have  insured  to  themselves 
the  commendation  of  posterity. 

This  action  of  the  Bishops,  when  it  came  to  be  known 
and  understood,  was  mightily  influential  in  calming  the 
troubled  waters  and  settling  the  public  mind.  And  though  by 
the  two  leading  papers  opposing  the  General  Conference  plan 
of  separation,  it  was  treated  with  no  apparent  respect  what- 
ever, with  the  vast  majority  the  case  was  far  otherwise.     And 


238  HISTORY   OP  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

these  sound  and  conservative  views  were  ably  seconded  by 
men  of  the  highest  standing  in  the  Northern  connection.  Drs. 
Bangs  and  Ohn  contended  with  great  abihty,  that  the  faith 
and  honor  of  the  Church  were  deeply  concerned  in  carrying 
out  the  plan  of  separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence, and  thereby  greatly  endeared  themselves  to  the  lovers  of 
peace  and  justice.  North  and  South.  The  Church  papers  too, 
Avith  the  exceptions  mentioned,  generally  took  the  same  hon- 
orable ground. 

At  the  close  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  Dr.  II.  B. 
Bascom,  in  behalf  of  the  Southern  minority,  gave  notice  of 
his  intention  to  review,  at  his  convenience,  the  Reply  of  Drs. 
Durban,  Peck  and  Elliott,  to  the  Protest  of  the  Minority  of  the 
General  Conference.  Immediately  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Louisville  Convention,  this  review  made  its  appearance  under 
the  title  of  "Methodism  and  Slavery,"  &c.,  and  was  rapidly  and 
"widely  circulated — an  edition  of  six  thousand  copies  having 
been  sold  almost  immediately,  without  nearly  supplying  the 
demand.  This  powerful  production  made  a  strong  impression 
favorable  to  the  cause  of  the  Church  South,  which  was  strong- 
ly seconded  by  the  clear  and  able  Report  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Louisville  Convention  on  a  Southern  Organization,  drawn 
up  by  the  same  hand. 

Dr.  Bascom's  Review  was  replied  to  by  Dr.  Peck,  one  of  the 
committee  who  replied  to  the  Protest,  and  Editor  of  the  Meth- 
odist Quarterly  Review.  This  attempt  to  answer  the  clear 
reasoning  of  Dr.  Bascom's  work,  was  a  remarkable  failure. 
The  work  of  Dr.  Peck  abounds  in  special  pleading, — imputes 
to  the  South  doctrines  never  entertained  by  it  or  Dr.  Bascom, 
and  advocates  at  length  opinions  never  broached  until  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  as  the  orthodox  doctrines  of 
Methodism. 

The  chief  effect  of  Dr.  Peck's  book  will  doubtless  be,  to 
mark  by  clearer  and  more  indelible  lines,  a  distinction  between 
the  North  and  the  South  on  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  polity. 
In  short,  the  doctrines  of  that  book  are  those  of  the  famous 
Reply  to  the  Protest,  carried  out  into  minuter  detail, — doctrines 
which  the  South  unanimously  reject,  and  about  which  there 
has  been  great  disagreement  in  the  North;  but  more  uni- 
formity must  be  superinduced  by  it  in  the  Northern  Connec- 
tion— -if  it  should  be  read  and  received  as  authority. 

The  plan  of  separation  contemplated  action  by  the  border 
Conferences,  as  the  appointed  means  of  lixing  their  connec- 
tional  relation  as  Conferences,  either  North  or  South.  Of  course, 
therefore,  no  border  Conference  as  such,  could  be  regarded  as 
strictly  belonging  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
until  a  majority  of  its  members  had  voted  to  adhere  to  that 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  2.39 

ronnection.  The  action  of  these  Conferences  M'as  therefore 
looked  to  with  much  interest.  It  was  thought,  and  especially 
by  our  Northern  brethren,  that  there  would  be  much  division 
in  all  those  Conferences.  In  most  of  them  large  Northern  ?ni- 
jwritics,  if  not  indeed  majorities^ — ^were  claimed;  with  how 
much  forecast  and  correctness,  ^vill  be  seen  by  the  report  of 
the  official  action  of  those  Conferences. 

But  before  we  notice  the  tinal  and  decisive  action  of  the 
border  Conferences  on  the  question,  we  must  pay  some  atten- 
tion to  the  action  of  some  of  the  Conferences  on  the  general 
subject,  which  were  not  called  on  to  act  by  their  relation  to  the 
plan  of  separation,  nor  by  any  other  consideration  of  which  we 
can  conceive,  save  that  of  a  desire  to  place  the  South  in  the 
wrong  in  this  whole  business. 

The  first  of  the  "  Conservative"  Conferences,  whose  action 
claims  notice  here,  is  the  North  Ohio.  The  following  nulli- 
fying action  was  had  by  that  respectable  body  of  ministers: — 

Whereas,  a  Convention  of  delegates  from  several  Annual 
Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,  assembled  at  Louisville,  in  May  last,  did  for- 
mally dissolve  their  connection  with  the  JMethodist  Episcopal 
Church,  a,nd  form  themselves  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganization, under  the  style  and  title  of  the  "  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,"  claiming,  as  authority  for  said  act,  the 
provisional  plari  of  separation  recommended  by  the  last  Gene- 
ral Coiifercnce,  notwithstanding  said  plan  is  void,  (allowing 
that  the  General  Conference  had  the  constitutional  right  to 
recommend  it.)  by  the  refusal  of  the  Annual  Conferences  to 
eoniirm  it.  And,  ic/icrcas,  it  appears  to  us,  that  our  Southern 
brethren  have  not  found  such  a  necessity  for  separating  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  was  affirmed,  did,  or  would 
exist;  and  on  the  real  undoubted  existence  of  ichich  necessity  the 
General  Conference  based  the  plan  of  separation;  and,  irJ/ereas, 
said  Convention  did  by  resolution  provide  for  the  incorpora- 
tion of  all  societies  within  the  slaveholding  States,  (represented 
in  the  Convention,)  and  for  the  representation  of  fractional 
portions  of  Conferences,  (not  represented  in  the  Convention)  in 
their  General  Conference,  thereby  violating  the  ktt€7%  as  well 
as  the  spirit  of  the  plan;  and,  whereas,  there  are  many 
ministers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
within  the  jurisdiction  claimed  by  the  Southern  organization, 
who  cannot  consent  to  be  transferred  from  the  Church  of  their 
choice  by  the  force  of  a  dead  recommendation,  but  will  remain, 
or  seek  to  remain,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  from  a  conviction  that  the  act  of  separation  is 
unnecessary,  revolutionary  in  its  character,  and  drawing  after 


240  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

it  all  the   fearful    consequences  of  a  schism  in  the  body    of 
Christ.     Therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  by  the  North  Ohio  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  Conference  assembled,  That  we  deeply  re- 
gret the  precipitate  haste  with  M^iich  this  great  and  momen- 
tous action  has  been  had  by  the  Southern  Conferences. 

2.  That  we  can  view  the  action  of  the  Louisville  Conven- 
tion in  no  other  light  than  that  of  secession,  (made  respectable 
by  the  number  engaged  in  it,)  and  a  voluntary  surrender  of  all 
right  and  privilege  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

3.  That  those  who  adhere  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  have  our  S3'mpathy  in  this  their  hour  of  darkness;  that 
for  them  we  will  make  supplication  continually,  that  they  may 
endure  hardiness  as  good  soldiers;  and  that  we  will  liirnish 
them  aid  as  they  may  require. 

4.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
to  provide  for  the  special  wants  of  our  Southern  brethren 
who  adhere  to  her  jurisdiction,  whether  they  be  majorities  or 
minorities  of  Conferences,  circuits,  stations,  or  societies. 

5.  That  we  recommend  to  our  adhering  brethren  in  the 
South,  in  such  prudent  way  as  they  best  can,  agreebly  to  the 
Discipline  of  our  Church,  to  continue  the  organization  of  their 
Conferences,  districts,  circuits,  stations,  and  classes,  iintil  the 
next  General   Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

6.  That  in  our  opinion  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  next  Gene- 
ral Conference  to  provide  fully  for  all  who  desire  to  continue 
in,  or  who  may  return  to,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
that  they  may  enjoy  all  those  inalienable  privileges  to  which 
they  have  a  constitutional  right,  and  which  cannot  be  wrested 
from  them. 

The  next  Conference  to  meet  was  Ohio.  This  body  met  in 
the  city  of  Cincinnati,  September  3d,  1845.  During  part  of 
its  session  Bishop  Soule  happened  to  be  in  the  city,  and  Bisho}) 
Hamline,  the  presiding  Bishop  of  the  Conference,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  courtesy  due  the  venerable  senior  Bishop  of  the 
Church,  invited  him  to  take  part  in  the  official  duties  of  the 
Conference.  Bishop  Soule  accordingly  opened  the  session 
with  the  usual  religious  services,  and  was  about  to  proceed  with 
the  regular  business,  when  an  aged  minister — Rev.  Jacob 
Young — oflered  the  folloM'ing  for  adoption  by  the  Conference: 

Whereas,  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  did  preside  at  the  Con- 
vention at  Louisville,  in  May  last,  composed  of  delegates  from 
the  Southern  Conferences;  and  ivhercas,  said  Convention  did 
resolve  the  said  Conferences  into  a  "  separate  and  di.stinct 
ecclesiastical  connection,"  solemnly  declaring  that  they  were 
no  longer  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  241 

Church;  and,  uhcrcas,  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  did  pledge 
their  adherence  to  the  Church  South:  and  in  view  of  the 
Southern  organization,  and  the  course  of  said  Bishops  at  a 
meeting  of  the  Bishops  in  New  York,  Bishops  Morris  and 
Janes  declined  presiding  in  the  Southern  Conferences;  therefore, 
^^Beso/vcd,  That  although  the  Conferences  composing  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  will  treat  the  Bishops  of  the 
Church  South  with  due  courtesy  and  respect,  yet  it  would  be, 
in  the  estimation  of  this  Conference,  inexpedient  and  highly 
improper  for  them  to  preside  in  said  Conferences." 

The  reading  of  this  paper  produced  considerable  excitement. 
Bishop  Soule  remarked  to  the  Conference  that  he  was  in  the 
chair,  not  by  his  own  seeking,  but  by  the  courteous  invitation  of 
their  Bishop;  that  to  him  he  was  ready  to  resign  the  Chair 
Avhenever  he  (Bishop  H.)  woidd  take  it;  but  considering  the 
paper  otlbred  disres})ectful  to  their  presiding  Bishop,  who  had 
placed  him  in  the  position  they  so  strongly  objected  to  his  oc- 
cupying, he  could  not,  without  participating*  in  the  disrespect 
offered  to  Bishop  Ilamline,  put  the  question  to  the  Conference. 
Bishop  Hamline,  however,  first  called  a  member  of  the  Con- 
ference to  the  Chair,  but  order  not  being  restored,  he  resumed  it 
himself  and  put  the  question  on  the  resolution  ejecting  Bishop 
Soule  from  the  Chair,  and  it  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  145  to  7. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  Conference,  the  following  resolu- 
tions were  offered,  and  after  a  spirited  debate,  adopted  by 
nearly  the  same  vote  as  the  preceding  resolution:— 

"Whereas,  events  connected  with  the  history  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  involving  important  principles  in  the 
government  of  said  Church,  have  lately  transpired;  and  ivhcrc- 
as,  the  position  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  constituting  the 
governmental  department,  should  be  clearly  defined;  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  we  heartily  approve  of  the  general  tenor 
of  the  editorial  course  of  the  Western  Christian  Advocate  and 
the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  in  relation  to  all  those 
questions  involved  in  the  existing  controversy  between  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  organization  styled,  "the 
distinct  and  separate  ecclesiastical  connection  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South." 

"  Resolved,  That  we  hereby  tender  to  these  worthy  defenders 
of  constitutional  Methodism  our  warmest  thanks,  and  assure 
them  of  our  sympathies,  and  pledge  them  our  hearty  support. 

"  Resolved,  That  we  tender  to  our  brethren  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  our  sympathies 
and  regards — hoping  that  should  they  not  alienate  themselves 
from  the  Church  of  their  choice,  the  next  General  Conference 
will  provide  for  them  in  the  regular  way. 

21 


342  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

"  Resolved,  Tliat  we  consider  the  provisional  arrangement, 
commonly  colled  "the  plan  of  separation,"  as  a  nullity,  be- 
cause unconstitutional  in  its  nature,  and  virtually  rejected 
by  the  Annual  Conferences  in  their  action  in  regard  to  the 
change  of  the  "  sixth  restrictive  rule." 

"  Resolved,  That  we  protest  against  the  term  "  North"  being 
prefixed,  or  added  to,  or  used  synonymously  for  the  "  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church"  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

Jacob  Young, 
George  W.  Walker." 

In  these  resolutions,  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  Conference 
not  only  7ivUj/ied  the  plan  of  separatjon,  but  the  very  men  who 
in  the  General  Conference  voted  lor  it  and  zealously  advocated 
it,  now  solemnly  resolved  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  thus  alike 
condemning  the  General  Conference  and  themselves,  in  their 
earnest  zeal  to  place  the  South  in  the  wrong. 

There  were  a  few,  however,  even  in  the  Conservative  Con- 
ference of  Ohio,  "♦^^ho  could  not  receive  these  strong  doctrines, 
and  we  here  give  their  Protest, — which,  it  may  not  be  amiss 
to  notice,  could  not  gain  admission  into  the  official  organ  so 
liberally  lauded  in  the  resolutions  above. 

"  We,  the  undersigned  membei's  of  the  Ohio  Annual  Confer- 
ence, in  conformity  to  the  rights  and  usages  of  deliberative 
a.-;semblies  in  such  cases,  do  hereby  protest  against  tlie  action 
of  the  majority  of  the  Conierence,  in  the  adoption  of  the  reso- 
lutions ollered  by  brothers  Jacob  Young  and  G.  W.  Walker, 
declaring  the  plan  adopted  by  the  last  General  Conference  a 
nullity. 

"  1 .  We  protest  against  the  action  of  the  majority  in  the  case, 
iK'cause  tlie  General  Conference  is  the  supreme  Icgisiative 
and  judicial  department  in  the  Church — the  high  court  of  ap- 
peals, beyond  which  Ave  cannot  travel  for  the  cure  of  errors,  it 
having  full  power  within  the  restrictive  rules,  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  Church. 

"  2.  Because  the  Board  of  Bishops,  the  highest  executive  au- 
thority in  the  Church,  are  the  supreme  constitutional  judges  of 
law  in  the  intervals  of  the  General  Conferences,  and  Hlive 
acknowledged  said  plan  of  tlie  General  Conference  as  of 
binding  obligation,  and  determined  to  regulate  their  adminis- 
tration accordingly. 

"  3.  Because  the  Annual  Conference,  in  adopting  those  reso- 
lutions, acted  upon  the  false  assumption  that,  in  their  official 
capacity,  they  have  power  to  nullify  an  act  of  the  General 
Conference,  which,  in  their  judgment,  it  had  no  constitutional 
authoi'it}^  to  pass;  whereas  the  General  Conference  is  the  sole 
judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  acts. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  243 

"  4.  Because  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  provided 
regulations  for  a  peaceable  separation  from  its  jurisdiction,  of 
the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the> 
slaveholding  States,  if,  in  their  judgment,  such  separation 
was  found  to  be  necessary:  in  consequence  of  which,  the 
Southern  Conferences  finding-  such  necessity,  have  proceeded 
to  effect  the  contemplated  sepai'ation. 

"  5.  Because  no  succeeding  General  Conference,  since  such 
division  has  taken  place,  will  possess  the  power  to  repeal  said 
act,  inasmuch  as  it  was  passed  by  the  representatives  of  all 
the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  United  States,  in  General  Con- . 
ference  assembled,  and  inasmuch  as  such  a  General  Confer- 
ence, in  which  all  the  parties  interested  will  be  represented, 
cannot  again  be  constituted.  Nor  can  either  of  the  CTcneral 
Conferences,  North  or  South,  disregard  or  set  aside  the  pro- 
visions of  the  plan,  because  it  originated  in  mutual  concession 
and  compromise,  and  now  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  treaty 
or  compact  between  the  two  existing  parties,  neither  of  which 
can  violate  or  annul  it,  without  a  breach  of  good  faith. 

"  6.  Because  the  act  of  this  body,  by  which  the  plan  of  sepa- 
ration is  declared  a  nullity,  is  unconstitutional,  revolutionary, 
and  subversive  of  the  fundamental  principles  involved  in  the 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

J.  A.  Water]\ian, 
S.  A.  Latta, 
Wm.  Burke, 
G.  W.  Maley, 
E.  W.  Sehon, 
Isaac  Egbert, 
Samuel  Black, 
J.  B.  Ellsworth." 

This  protest  subsequently  received  the  cordial  official  appro- 
bation of  the  Quarterly  Conference  of  one  of  the  oldest  and 
most  respectable  stations  in  the  N^orthern  Connection — that  of 
St.  George's,  Philadelphia.  Of  the  cis'Jit  signers  of  this  Pro- 
test, all  except  the  last  two  named,  afterwards  left  the  Ohio 
Coinference  and  united  with  the  Southern  Connection. 

But  far  as  the  North  Ohio  and  Ohio  Conferences  went  in 
their  opposition  to  the  South,  it  was  reserved  for  Illinois  to 
leave  them  in  the  rear.  Not  only  did  that  Conference  adopt 
all  the  nullification  of  the  others,  but  erected  Annual  Confer- 
ences into  a  supreme  judicatory,  vested  with  full  powers  to 
determine  the  constitutionality  of  acts  done  by  the  General 
Conference,  and  to  revoke,  suspend  or  nullify  them  at  pleasm-e. 

The  following  are  their  preamble  and  resolutions: — 

"  Whereas,  The  traveling  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 


244  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF  THE 

pal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  are,  by  the  Disci- 
pline of  said  Church,  constituted  its  pastors,  who,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  accomplishing-  the  great  and  avowed  object  of  their 
ministry,  are  divided  into  Annual  Conferences,  in  which  is 
lodged  the  power  of  appointing  the  delegates  who  compose, 
or  constitute,  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church:  And 
^  whereas,  the  Discipline  gives  to  the  General  Conference  the 
power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  said  Church,  under 
limitations  and  restrictions,  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  does  not 
say  where  the  power  is  lodged,  to  determine  as  to  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  acts  and  doings  of  the  General  Conference: 
•And  whereas,  in  the  absence  of  any  disciplinary  expression 
on  this  subject,  it  follows,  that  the  Annual  Conferences,  being 
the  immediate  constituents  of  the  General  Conference,  con- 
stitute the  natural  and  proper  tribunal,  and  exclusively  pos- 
sess the  right  to  determine  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  all 
acts  and  doings  of  the  General  Conference;  therefore, 

"1.  Resolved Jn/  the  IHuiois  Annual  Conference,  That  the  plan 
re})orted  by  the  Committee  of  i\ine,  and  adopted  by  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  called  by  the  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,"  "  A  constitutional  provisional  plan  of  separation,"  is, 
in  its  operations,  in  direct  contravention  of  the  third  restrictive 
article  of  the  Discipline,  which  prohibits  the  General  Confer- 
ence from  altering  said  article,  as  follows:  "  They  shall  not 
change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to 
do  away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  gen- 
eral superintendency."  This  it  docs,  in  that  the  said  plan, 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference,  in  its  operations,  excludes 
the  general  superintendenc}'  from  the  whole  Clmrch  and  ter- 
ritory South  of  the  prescribed  boundary — thus  preventing 
them  from  traveling  "  through  the  connection  at  large."  It 
also  contravenes  the  fifth  restrictive  article,  which  says,  "They 
shall  not  do  awa}^  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers 
of  trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal;  neither  sliall  they 
do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members  of  trial  before 
society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal."  The 
plan  adopted  by  the  General  Conference,  in  its  operations, 
turns  out  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  both  ministers 
and  members,  without  disciplinary  privileges,  and  hence,  it  is 
unconstitutional,  and  ought  not  to  be  carried  into  operation 
by  the  Bishops  and  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church . 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  Ave  deeply  sympathize  with  the  ministers 
and  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  re- 
side within  the  limits  of  the  Southern  Organization,  in  the 
troubles  and  difficulties  they  are  passing  through;  and  that 
we  recommend  to  them  to  remain  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  245 

Church;  and  we  further  recommend,  that  in  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  Mdthin  the  limits  of  the  Southern  Organization, 
where  there  are  traveling  preachers  who  still  adhere  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  meet  and  form  themselves 
into  the  regular  Annual  Conference;  and,  in  the  event  there 
shall  be  no  Bishop  present  to  preside  over  their  deliberations, 
to  appoint  a  President  pro  tern,  as  is  provided  for  by  the  Dis- 
cipline in  the  absence  of  a  Bishop. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  the  JBishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  are  most  respectfully  requested  to  attend  the  ^^lissouri 
and  Kentucky  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  preside  over  their  deliberations,  and  make  all  ne- 
cessary arrangements  to  supply  the  members  of  the  Church, 
in  the  above  named  Annual  Conferences,  with  preachers,  to 
take  the  pastoral  care  of  them;  and  to  make  such  further  ar- 
rangements as  they  may  deem  nocessary,  to  supply  with 
preachers  all  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
residing  within  the  boundaries  of  the  self-styled  "Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South." 

"4.  Resolved,  That  the  action  of  the  Louisville  Convention 
was  without  any  constitutional  authority;  and,  consequently,  it 
can  only  be  regarded  as  a  secession  from  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church — that,  in  view  of  this  being  a  secession,  and  of 
the  difficulties  now  existing  in  the  Church  growing  out  of  the 
revolutionary  spirit  which  caused  them,  being  of  such  a  na- 
ture, and  to  such  an  extent,  it  is  sufficient  to  authorize  the 
calling  of  a  special  General  Conference.  The  Bishops  are, 
therefore,  most  respectfully  requested  and  advised,  to  call  a 
General  Conference  as  soon  as  practicable. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  inasmuch  as  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  are  the  only  consti- 
tutional judges  and  determiners  of  the  acts  and  doings  of  the 
General  Conference,  it  becomes  their  indispensable  duty  to  de- 
termine as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  so  called  plan  of 
separation,  passed  by  the  late  General  Conference,  at  theii- 
next  several  Annual  Conferences;  and,  if  they  determine  it  to 
be  unconstitutional,  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  special  Gene- 
ral Conference,  should  one  be  called. 

"  6.  Resolved,  That  as  soon  as  a  majority  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  have  con- 
curred in  the  above  resolutions,  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  requested  and  ad- 
vised, to  proceed  immediately  to  take  charge  of,  and  superin- 
tend all  the  ministers  and  members  adhering  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  within  the  assumed  bounds  of  the  Church 
"South." 

"  7.  Rcsdvedy  That  the   course   pursued  by  Drs.  Bond  and 

21* 


246  HISTORY  OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THB 

Elliott,  during  the  difficulties  in  the  Church,  since  the  last 
General  Conference,  merits  the  highest  praise  from  the  Church; 
and,  that  the  unmerited  abuse  which  the  Southern  editors,  and 
others,  have  attempted  to  fasten  upon  them,  for  their  faithful 
and  able  defence  of  the  Church,  is  worthy  the  cause  they 
espouse,  and  deserves  the  stern  rebuke  of  all  the  friends  of 
the  Church." 

The  same  Conference,  it  appears,  adopted  a  resolution  re- 
fusing to  pay  their  proportion  of  the  salary  or  quarterage  of 
Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew.  When  it  is  recollected  that  the 
Southern  Conferences  were  paying  their  full  share  of  the  sal- 
aries oi  five  Northern  Bishops  who  render  no  service  whatever 
in  the  South,  this  withholding  of  quarterage  from  two  Southern 
Bishops,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  having  met  too  stern  a  re- 
buke in  the  following  resolution  adopted  by  unanimous  vote 
of  the  Missouri  Conference: — - 

"Whereas,  It  appears  from  documents  from  Illinois  Confer- 
ence, at  its  late  annual  session,  that  the  said  Conference  re- 
fused to  pay  its  share  of  the  Disciplinary  allowance  to  Bishops 
Soule  and  Andrew;  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Missouri  Annual  Conference  order  that 
the  Stewards  pay  the  same  for  the  Illinois  Conference,  and 
make  no  charge  for  the  same." 

We  now  come  to  notice  the  movements  of  Conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  and  which  were  represented  in  the 
Louisville  Convention.  The  first  in  order  of  these  is  Kentucky. 
It  met  September  10,  1845,  in  Frankfort,  Ky.,  and  was  at- 
tended by  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew.  On  the  first  day  of 
the  session  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  of- 
fered to  the  Conference  and  adopted: — 

^'  Whereas,  the  long  continued  agitation  and  excitement  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  especially  such  agitation  and  excitement  in 
the  last  General  Conference,  in  connection  with  the  civil  and 
domestic  relations  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  the  owner  of  slave 
property,  by  inheritance  and  marriage,  assumed  such  form  in 
the  action  had  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  to  compel  the 
Southern  and  South-western  delegates  in  that  body,  to  believe, 
and  formally  and  solemnly  to  declare,  that  a  state  of  things  must 
result  therefrom  which  would  render  impracticable  the  suc- 
cessful prosecution  of  the  objects  and  purposes  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  and  Church  organization,  in  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences within  the  limits  of  the  slaveholding  States; — upon 
the  basis  of  which  declaration,  the  General  Conference  adopted 
a  provisional  plan  of  separation,  in  view  of  which  said  Con- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  247 

ferences  might,  if  they  found  it  necessary,  form  themselves 
into  a  separate  General  Conference  jurisdiction;  and  whereas, 
said  Conferences,  acting  first  in  their  separate  Conference  ca- 
pacity,* as  distinct  ecclesiastical  bodies,  and  then  collectively, 
by  their  duly  appointed  delegates  and  representatives,  in  Gen- 
eral Convention  assembled,  have  found  and  declared  such  sep- 
aration necessary,  and  have  further  declared  a  final  dissolution, 
in  fact  and  form,  of  the  jurisdictional  connection  hitherto  ex- 
isting between  tlicm  and  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  as  heretofore  constituted;  and  have 
organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Soutli,  upon  the 
unaltered  basis  of  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  before  its  separation, 
as  authorized  by  the  General  Conference;  and  whereas,  said 
plan  of  separation,  as  adopted  by  the  General  Conference,  and 
carried  out  by  the  late  Convention  of  Southern  delegates  in 
in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  and  also,  recognized  by 
the  entire  Episcopacy  as  authoritative  and  of  binding  obliga- 
tion in  the  whole  range  of  their  administration,  provides  that 
Conferences  bordering  on  the  line  of  division  between  the 
two  connections— North  and  South — shall  determine  by  vote 
of  a  majority  of  their  members  respectively,  to  which  juris- 
diction they  will  adhere;  therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  premi- 
ses, as  one  of  the  border  Conferences,  and  subject  to  the  above 
named  rule, 

"  Resolved,  by  the  Kentucky  Anniuil  Conference  of  tJic  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  That  in  conforming  to  the  General  Con- 
ference plan  of  separation,  it  is  necessary  that  this  Conference 
decide  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  its  members  to  which  connec- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  it  will  adhere,  and 
that  we  now  proceed  to  make  such  decision. 

"  Resolved,  That  any  member  or  members  of  this  Conference, 
declining  to  adhere  to  that  connection  to  which  the  majority 
shall  by  regular,  oflicial  vote  decide  to  adhere,  shall  be  regard- 
ed as  entitled,  agreeably  to  the  plan  of  separation,  to  hold 
their  relation  to  the  other  ecclesiastical  connection — North  or 
South — as  the  case  may  be,  without  blame  or  prejudice  of  any 
kind,  unless  there  be  grave  objections  to  the  moral  character 
of  such  member  or  members,  before  the  date  of  such  formal 
adherence. 

"Resolved,  That  agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the  General 
Conference  plan  of  separation,  and  the  decisions  of  the  Epis- 
copacy with  regard  to  it,  any  person  or  persons,  from  and  after 
the  act  of  non-concurrence  with  the  majority,  as  above,  cannot 
be  entitled  to  hold  membership,  or  claim  any  of  the  rights  or 
privileges  of  membership  in  this  Conference. 

"Resolved,  That  as  a  Conference,  claiming  all  the  rights. 


248  HISTORY   OF  THE   ORGANIZATION   OF  THE 

powers,  and  privileges  of  an  Annual  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  we  adhere  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  that  all  our  proceedings,  records,  and  offi- 
cial acts  hereafter,  be  in  the  name  and  style  of  the  Kentucky 
Annual  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vSouth. 
"Frankfort,  Ky.,  September  10th,  1845." 

The  vote  on  the  4th — the  adhering  resolution — being  taken 
by  ayes  and  noes,  stood — ayes  77,  noes  6.  Four  of  the  six 
who  voted  in  the  negative,  afterwards  adhered  personally  to 
the  South;  but  three  persons  wdio  did  not  vote  on  Conference 
adherence — ^one  being  absent  and  two  being  probationers — ■ 
personally  adhered  to  the  North.  Here  the  result  was  very 
difierent  from  the  predictions  of  one  party  and  the  apprehen- 
sions of  the  other.  The  unanimity  of  sentiment  in  the  Con- 
ference and  the  delightful  harmony  which  prevailed,  wielded 
a  mighty  influence  in  promoting  harmony  in  the  societies  and 
throughout  the  Conference.  On  a  line  of  border  of  several 
hundreds  of  miles,  there  was  found  but  one  small  society  ad- 
hering to  the  North,  while  in  nearly  all  the  others,  not  a  mur- 
mur or  complaint, was  heard.  A  paper  in  Kentucky,  which  had 
employed  all  its  influence  previously  against  the  South,  from 
this  time  acquiesced  and  faithfully  co-operated  with  the  Con- 
ference. True,  the  Conference  had  lost  two  effective  men — • 
two  young  men  who  might  in  time  have  become  useful,  and  a 
venerable  suj)crannuate — for  whose  support  during  life  the  Con- 
ference gave  a  generous  pledge;  but  they  had  gained  y«'f  (and 
afterwards  gained  three)  from  the  North,  all  men  of  experience, 
weight,  and  talents. 

The  second  border  Conference  to  act  on  the  question  of  ad- 
herence, was  Missouri.  Here  it  was  claimed  that  the  Northern 
party  would  have  a  Conference  at  any  rate;  for  if  they  could 
not  secure  a  majority,  they  would  organize  with  a  minority^ 
transact  the  regular  business  of  the  Missouri  Conference,  and 
draw  the  dividend  from  the  Book  Concern.  The  better  to  ac- 
complish their  purposes,  Bishop  Morris  was  written  to  and  in- 
vited to  attend  the  Conference,  with  a  desire  that  he  would 
take  charge  of  the  Northern  party.  To  this  invitation  he  gave 
the  following  noble  response: — 

"BISHOP  MORRIS'  LETTER. 

"  Burlington,  Iowa,  Sept.  8,  1845. 
"  Rev.  Wilson  S.  McMurry — Dear  Brother, — Your  letter  of 
the  1st  inst.  is  now  before  me.  The  resolutions  to  which  you 
refer  did  pass  in  the  meeting  of  the  Bishops  at  New  York  in 
July,  unanimously.  We  all  believe  they  are  in  accordance 
with  the  plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the  General  Confer- 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  249 

ence.  Whether  that  plan  was  wise  or 'foolish,  constitutional 
or  unconstitutional,  dicl  not  become  us  to  say,  it  being  our  duty, 
as  Bishops,  to  know  what  the  General  Conference  ordered  to 
be  done  in  a  certain  contingency  which  has  actually  transpired, 
and  to  carry  it  out  in  good  faith.  It  is,  perhaps,  unfortiuia'te 
that  the  resolutions  were  not  immediately  publislied,  but  it 
was  not  thought  necessary  by  a  majority  at  the  time  they 
passed.  Still  our  administration  will  be  conformed  to  them. 
Bishop  Soule's  notice  was  doubtless  founded  up6n  them. 

'  As  I  am  the  responsible  man  at  Indiana  Conference,  Oct.  8, 
it  will  not  be  in  my  power  to  attend  Missouri  Conference;  nor 
do  I  think  it  important  to  do  so.  Were  I  there,  I  could  not, 
Math  my  views  of  propriety  and  responsibility,  encourage  sub- 
division. If  a  majority  of  the  Missouri  Conference  resolve  to 
come  under  the  Methodi>t  Episcopal  Church,  South,  that  would 
destroy  the  identity  of  the  Missouri  t  onference  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  As  to  having  two 
Missouri  Conferences,  each  claiming  to  be  the  true  one,  and 
demanding  the  dividends  of  the  Book  Concei-n,  and  claiming 
the  Church  property,  that  is  the  very  tiling  that  the  General 
Conference  designed  to  prevent,  by  adopting  the  amicable 
plan  of  separation.  It  is  true  that  the  minority  preachers  have 
a  right,  according  to  the  general  rule  in  the  plan  of  separa- 
tion, to  be  recognized  still  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Cliurch, 
but  in  order  to  that  they  must  go  to  some  adjoining  Confei'cnce 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  border  charges  may 
also,  by  a  majority  of  votes,  decide  which  organization  they 
will  adhere  to,  and  if  reported  in  regular  order  to  the  Con- 
ference from  which  they  wish  to  be  supplied,  or  to  the  Bishops 
presiding,  they  will  be  attended  to,  on  either  side  of  the  line  of 
separation.  But  if  any  brethren  suppose  the  Bishops  will 
send  preachers  from  the  North  to  interior  charges  South,  or  to 
minorities  of  bordei-  charges,  to  produce  disruption,  or  that 
they  will  encourage  minority  preachers  on  either  side  of  the 
line  to  organize  opposition  lines,  by  establishing  one  Confer- 
ence in  the  bounds  of  another,  they  are  misled.  That  would 
be  departing  f.-om  the  plain  letter  of  the  rule  prescribed  by  the 
General  Conference,  in  the  premises.  Editors  may  teach  such 
nullitication  and  answer  for  it,  if  they  will*  but  the  Bishops 
all  understand  their  duty  better  than  to  endorse  such  princi- 
ples. I  acknowledge  that,  under  the  practical  operation  of 
the  plan  of  separation,  some  hard  cases  may  arise;  but  the 
Bishops  do  not  make,  and  have  not  the  power  to  relieve  them. 
It  is  the  fault  of  the  rule,  and  not  of  the  executive  adminis- 
tration of  it.  In  the  mean  time,  there  is  much  more  bad  feel- 
ing indulged  in  respecting  the  separation,  than  there  is  neces- 
sity for.     If  the  plan  of  separation  had   been   carried   out  in 


250  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

good  faith  and  christian  feeUng  on  both  sides,  it  would  scarcely 
have  been  felt  any  more  than  the  division  of  an  Annual  Con- 
ference. It  need  not  destroy  confidence  or  embarj-ass  the  work, 
if  the  business  be  managed  in  the  spirit  of  Christ.  I  trust  the 
time  is  not  very  far  distant  Mdicn  brethren,  North  and  South, 
will  cease  their  hostilities,  and  betake  themselves  to  their 
prayers  and  other  appropriate  duties  in  earnest.  Then,  and 
not  till  then,  may  we  expect  the  Lord  to  bless  us  as  in  former 
days.  * 

"  I  am,  dear  brother,  yours  respectfully  and  afTcctionately, 

Tiios.    A.    MoREIS." 

Bishop  Soule  presided  over  the  Conference,  and  when  the 
question  of  adherence  was  taken  up,  the  letter  of  Bishop 
jSlorris  was  read,  and  as  may  be  supposed,  not  without  effect. 

The  same  resolutions  substantially  adopted  by  Kentucky 
Conference,  were  introduced  and  adopted  by  this  Conference, 
only  1-1  voting  in  the  negative,  including  absentees. 

Next,  the  llolston  Conference  met:  Bishop  Andrew  presided, 
and  the  Conference  adopted  the  following  preamble  and  reso- 
lutions, with  but  one  negative  vote;  and  the  brother  who  gave 
the  negative  vote,  afterwards  gave  in  his  adhesion  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  took  work  of  the 
Confevence  as  usual: — ■ 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  offered  by 
Samuel  Fatten,  and  adopted  by  a  vote  of  51  in  the  affirmative 
and  1  in  the  negative.  Several  members  were  not  in  at- 
tendance at  the  Conference. 

'•  Whereas,  The  long  continued  agitation  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  and  abolition  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  did 
at  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church,  held  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  in  May,  1844,  result  in  the  adoption  of  certain 
measures  by  that  body,  which  seriously  threatened  a  disrup- 
tion of  the  Church:  and  to  avert  this  calamity  said  General 
Conference  did  devise  and  adopt  a  plan  contemplating  the 
peaceful  separation  of  the  South  from  the  North;  and  consti- 
tuting the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  the  sole 
judges  of  the  necessity  for  such  separation;  and,  whereas, 
the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  exercise  of 
the  right  accorded  to  them  by  the  General  Conference,  did  by 
their  representatives  in  Convention  at  I>ouisville,  Ky.,  in  May 
last,  decide  that  separation  was  necessary,  and  proceeded  to 
organize  themselves  into  a  separate  and  distinct  ecclesastical 
connection,  under  the  style  and  title  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,  basing  their  claim  to  a  legitimate  relation 
to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  upon 
their  unwavering  adherence   to  the   "plan  of  separation," 


METflODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH.  251 

adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church,  in  18-14, 
and  their  devotion  to  the  doctrines,  discipline,  and  usages  of 
the  Church  as  they  received  them  from  their  fathers. 

"  And  as  the  plan  of  separation  provides  that  the  Conferences 
bordering  on  the  geographical  line  of  separation,  shall  decide 
their  relation  b}'  the  votes  of  the  majority, —  as,  also,  that 
ministers  of  every  grade  shall  make  their  election  A'^orth  or 
South  without  censure, — therefore, 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  we  now  proceed  to  determine  the  ques- 
tion of  our  ecclesiastical  relation,  by  the  vote  of  the  Conference. 

"2.  That  we,  the  members  of  the  Holston  Annual  Confer- 
ence, claiming  all  the  rights,  powers  and  privileges  of  an  An- 
nual Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  do  hereby  make  our  election  with,  and  adhere 
to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  3.  That  while  we  thus  declare  our  adherence  to  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South,  we  repudiate  the  idea  of  seces- 
sion in  any  schismatic  or  offensive  sense  of  the  phrase,  as  we 
neither  give  up  nor  surrender  any  thing  ^vhich  we  have  re- 
ceived as  constituting  any  part  of  Tvlethodism,  and  adhere  to 
the  Southern  ecclesiastical  organization,  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  plan  of  separation,  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  its 
session  in  New  York,  in  May,  1844. 

"  4.  That  we  are  satisfied  with  our  Book  of  Discipline  as  it 
is,  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  every  other  vital  feature  of 
Methodism,  as  recorded  in  that  book;  and  that  we  will  not 
tolerate  any  changes  whatever,  except  such  verbal  or  unim- 
portant alterations  as  may,  in  the  judgment  of  the  General 
Conference,  facilitate  the  work  in  which  we  are  engaged,  and 
promote  uniformity  and  harmony  in  our  administration. 

"  5.  That  the  journals  of  our  present  session,  as  well  as  all 
our  ollicial  business,  be  henceforth  conformed  in  style  and  title 
to  our  ecclesiastical  relations. 

"  6.  That  it  is- our  desire  to  cultivate  and  maintain  fraternal 
relations  with  our  brethren  of  the  North.  And  we  do  most 
sincerely  deprecate  the  continuance  of  paper  warfare,  either 
by  editors  or  correspondents  in  our  official  Church  papers,  and 
devoutly  pray  for  the  speedy  return  of  peace  and  harmony  in 
the  Church,  both  North  and  South. 

"  7.  That  the  Holston  Annual  Conference  most  heartily  com- 
mend the  course  of  our  beloved  Bishops,  Soule  and  Andrew, 
during  the  recent  agitations  which  have  resulted  in  the  terri- 
torial and' jurisdictional  separation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  that  we  tender  them  our  thanks  for  their  steady 
adherence  to  principle  and  the  best  interests  of  the  slave 
population.  David  Adajis." 


252  HISTORY   OF  THE    ORGANIZATION    OF   THE 

The  Tennessee  Conference,  which  met  October  22,  1845, 
though  not  a  border  Conference,  adopted  the  following  pre- 
amble and  resolutions,  by  a  unanimous  vote: — 

"  Whereas,  The  agitation  of  the  questions  of  slavery  and 
abolition  for  the  last  several  years,  has  created  great  excite- 
ment in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  destructive  of  her 
peace  and  harmony;  and  whereas,  the  General  Conference 
of  1844  did,  by  extra-judicial  act,  virtually  suspend  the  Rev. 
James  O.  Andrew,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  said  Church,  for  an 
act  in  which  he  was  fully  sustained  by  the  law  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  Lhurch,  and  did  thereby  render  a  continuance  of 
the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  said  Cieneral  Conference,  inconsistent  Mdth  the  interests 
of  our  holy  religion,  and  the  great  purposes  of  the  christian 
minjstry;  and  whereas,  the  said  General  Conference  adopted 
a  plan  for  a  constitutional  and  peaceable  division  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  separate  and  distinct 
ecclesiastical  jurisdictions;  and  whereas,  the  Conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States  did  adjudge  such  separation  impe- 
riously necessary,  and  did  appoint  delegates  from  their  respec- 
tive bodies  to  meet  in  General  Convention  at  Louisville,  Ky., 
on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845;  and  whereas,  said  Convention 
did  proceed  to  declare  the  separation  right,  expedient  and 
necessary  for  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  the  Southern  Church, 
and  did  proceed,  according  to  the  plan  of  separation  provided 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  to  adopt  measures  for  the 
organization  of  a  separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical  juiisdic- 
tion,  known  by  the  name  and  under  the  style  of  "  The  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South,"  based  on  the  doctrines  and 
economy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  set  forth  in 
the  Discipline  of  said  Church:   therefore, 

"  1.  licsolvcd,  That  we  approve  the  plan  of  separation  as  re- 
ported bv  the  Committee  of  Nine,  and  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1844. 

"2.  That  we  most  cordially  approve  of  the  entire  proceed- 
ings of  the  Southern  delegates  in  the  Convention  at  Louisville, 
in  jMay,  1845,  and  that  we  solemnly  declare  our  adherence  to 
the  said  Southern  Organization. 

"3.  That  our  journals  and  all  our  official  records  be  kept  in 
the  name  and  under  the  style  of  the  Tennessee  Annual  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  4.  That  we  will,  at  this  session,  elect  delegates  to  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to 
be  held  at  Petersburg,  Va.,  on  the  1st  day  of  May,  1846,  ac- 
cording to  the  ratio  of  representation  (one  for  every  fourteen 
members  of  the  Conference)  fixed  at  the  Louisville  Convention. 


METHODIST    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH,    SOUTH,  253 

"  5.  That  we.  as  ever,  heartily  believe  in  the  doctrines  and 
approve  the  government  of  the  JMethodist  Ei)iscopal  Church, 
as  set  forth  in  our  articles  of  faith,  and  taught  in  the  Discip  ■ 
line,  and  that  we  will  resist  any  and  every  attempt  to  change 
any  cardinal  features  of  Methodism,  as  handed  down  to  us  by 
'  our  fathers.' 

"  6.  That  we  highly  approve  of  the  course  pursued  by  Bish- 
ops Soule  and  Andrew  in  their  administration,  since  the  oc- 
currence of  the  difficulties  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844, 
and  that  we  sympathise  with  them  in  the  unjust  and  ungene- 
rous persecution  which  has  been  so  bitterly  carried  on  against 
them  in  certain  portions  of  the  North. 

"  7.  That  we  properly  appreciate  the  conservative  course 
pursued  by  the  Bench  of  Bishops,  pending  the  difficulties 
which  for*  the  last  eighteen  months  have  so  agitated  the 
Church,  and  specially  do  we  commend  their  purpose  of  carry- 
ing out,  so  far  as  their  administration  is  concerned,  the  plan 
of  separation  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 

"  Robert  Paine, 
"J.  B.  McFerrin." 

Farther  than  this  we  cannot  follow  the  action  of  the  Con- 
ferences, nor  is  it  important,  as  those  in  which  most  difficulty 
and  division  were  apprehended  have  been  noticed. 

Methodism  has  ever  been  peculiarly  the  child  of  Providence, 
and  to  follov/  the  guiding  star  of  that  Providence  has  always 
been  her  rule  of  action  and  her  glory.  Mr.  Wesley  was  ar- 
dently attached  to  the  Church  of  England,  yet  following  the 
clear  indications  of  Providence,  he  was  led  to  establish  an 
independent  Church  in  America,  contrary  to  his  personal 
wishes  and  long  cherished  purpose.  Nearly  all  the  parts  and 
peculiarities  of  JMethodist  economy  and  rule  have  been  adopted 
in  the  same  way,  without  previous  concert  or  design.  South- 
ern Methodists  have  ever  been  more  rigid  in  their  adherence 
to  what  they  understand  to  be  original  Methodism,  than  any 
other  portion  of  the  American  Church.  Hence,  when  the 
Northei-n  portion  of  the  Church  thought  the  measures  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  necessary  to  the  success 
and  prosperity  of  Methodism  in  that  part  of  the  Union,  and 
when  the  South  were  convinced  that  the  same  measures  must 
work  the  utter  ruin  of  Methodism  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
or  a  division  of  the  Church,  Southern  hearts  felt  and  bled  more 
deeply  than  any  others;  but  terrible  as  was  the  mental  strug- 
gle, and  painful  the  alternative,  when  they  believed  they  saw 
the  star  of  Divine  Providence  leading  the  way,  and  the  sal- 
vation of  the  Southern  Church  and  the  African  race  in  the 
proposed  arrangement,  they  yielded  a  sorrowful  acquiescence 

'22 


S54  HISTORY    OF    THE    ORGANIZATION,    kC. 

to  the  stern  nccessitj''  of  the  case.  And  trusting  in  the  future 
j»uidancc  of  Heaven's  good  Providence,  they  went  forth  to 
cultivate  the  vineyard  in  which  they  were  called  to  labor  for 
tlicir  Master,  believing  that  if  it  were  of  God,  his  blessing 
Avould  be  upon  them  and  upon  the  work  of  their  hands;  but 
if  not,  that  it  would  come  to  naught.  But  their  hearts  and 
liaud.s  have  been  strengthened  mightily — the  seal  of  Heaven's 
approbation  has  been  set  upon  their  couree — the  gracious 
AYork  of  the  Lord  has  been  gloriously  revived — thousands  have 
been  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  salvation,  and  Ethiopia 
with  glad  heart  is  stretching  out  her  hands  unto  God. 


INDEI 


A 

Abolition  petition  from  a  northern  Annual  Conference 

presented  to  General  Conference,  1 

Action  of  General  Conference  in  case  of  Bishop  Andrew 

disapproved  by  Kentucky  Conference,  10ft 

Missoari  "  1*25 

Holston  "  1*27 

Tennessee         "  129 

Memphis  "  132 

Mississippi         "  185 

Arkansas  "  137 

Virginia  '•  141 

N.  Carohna      "  14Ji 

S.  Carolina       "  144 

Georgia  "  14S 

Florida  "  153 

Texas  "  154 

Alabama  "  150 

Address  of  Southern  Delegates  in  General  Conference  to 

ministers  and  members  in  the  South,  1(>5 

Address  of  Bishop  Soule  to  General  Conference,  48 

Andrew  to  General  Conference,  4*2 

Soule  to  Convention,  173 

of  Kentucky  Conference  on  division  of  the  Church,  111 
Adherence  of  Conferences,  stations,  and  societies,  to  be  de- 
cided by  vote,  '.)1 
Alabama  Coijl^rence,  resolutions  of,  on  division,                   15G 
Ambiguity  ofueneral  Conference  decision  in  Bishop  An- 
drew's case,                                                                             158 
Annual  Conferences  fail  to  change  the  6th  restriction,          IGH 
Ayes  and  noes  on  the  compromise  proposed  to  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  by  the  Bishops,                                              (>7 
Ayes  and  noes  on  Bisliop  Andrew's  case,                                  t>7 
on  Mitchell's  resolutions,  8S 


256  INDEX. 

Ayes  and  Noes  on  first  Resolution  of  Plan,  99 

on  2nd  and  5th  "    "   Plan,  100 

on  the  1st  organizing  resolution,  186 

on  2d                 "                  "  187 

on  additional  report,  188 

on  main  report,  199 
on  inviting  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  to 

unite  with  the  South,  199 

B 

Baltimore  Conference,  new  position  of  in  Harding's  case,       2 

proceedings  of  in  Harding's  case,         3 

Bangs  Dr.  N.  remarks  on  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  22 

explanation  by,  35 

ad\  ocates  plan  of  separation,  94 

opposes   course   of  leading  Church  papers 

North,  238 

Bascom  Dr.  H.  B.,  his  testimony  respecting  object  of  reso- 
lution of  1840,  9 
presents  Protest  of  Southern  Delegates,    73 
his  "  Methodism  and  Slavery,"                 238 
"                 "        replied  to  by  Dr.  Peck,  238 
BerrymanMr.,  remarks  of  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,          21 
Bisliop  Andrew's  case  not  the  Tcal  cause  of  General  Con- 
ference action,                                                                           12 
Bkhop  Andrew  his  response  to  committee  on  Episcopacy,      16 
his  marriage  constituted  his  offense,             23 
his  address  to  General  Conference,               42 
his  case  decided,                                                68 
kept  in  suspense  as  to  action  of  Bishops 

in  his  case,  158 

his  response  to  Bishop  Soule's  letter  invi- 
ting him  to  work,  159 
his  reply  to  the  Convention  on  uniting 
with  the  South,                                          200 
Biiiliops  permitted   to   speak   in   General  Conference  in 

Bishop  Andrew's  case,  48 

their  proposition  of  compromise  in  Bishop   An- 
drew's case,  64 
tlieir  proposition  of  compromise  reject^  by  Gen- 
eral Conference,  C7 
their  proposition  of  compromise,  vote  on,  by  Gen- 
eral Conference,  67 
letter  asking  explanation  of  action  in  Bishop  An- 
drew's case,  88 
publication  explaining  their  course  towards  Bish- 
op Andrew,                                                                  165 


INDEX.  257 

Bishops,  meeting  of,  at  New  York,  in  July,  1845,  23fi 

their  resolutions  at  that  meeting,  287 

their  course  approved  by  HoLston  Conference,  120 

"         "               "         by  Mississippi  Conference,  18(> 

"         "               "         by  Texas  Conference,  154 

Bishop  Hedding  withdraws  his  name  from  compromise,  Cti 

Waugh  refuses  to  withdraw  his  "               "  66 

3Iorris         "                  "           "     "               "  66 

►Soule's  Address  to  General  Conference,  48 

Letter  inviting  Bishop  Andrew  to  labor,  161 

his  letter  defending  the  measure,  168 

his  reply  to  the  Convention  as  to  uniting 

with  the  South,  200 
his  presiding  in  Northern  Conferences  op- 
posed, 236 
his  ejection  from  Chair  of  Ohio  Conference,  240 
Bishops  all  invited  to  attend  the  Conv.  by  Kentucky  Con.,  Ill 

Missouri       "  127 

Holston        "  120 

Tennessee   "  131 

Memphis      "  134 

Mississippi  "  136 

Arkansas     "  130 

S.Carolina  "  146 

Georgia        "  152 

Alabama     "  15(-» 
Bond  Dr.  T.  E.,  opposed  giving  border  societies  a  choice  in 

division,  97 

Bowen  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  21 

C 

Capers  Dr.,  his  speech,  62 

plan  of  division,  70 

referred  to  committee,  70 

Cartwright  Mr.,  opposed  to  the  plan  of  separation,  93 

Central  Church  Organ,  its  violent  opposition  to  CTcneral 

Conference  plan  of  separation,  108 
followed  by  W.  C.  Advocate,  108 
Church,  unity  of,  not  affected  by  the  separation,  93 
primitive  not  more  united  than  M.  E.  Church  af- 
ter division,  Dr.  Elliott,  93 
Collins  Rev.  J.  A.,  his  position  on  the  practicability  of  eman- 
cipation in  Maryland,  4 
on  the  usas'e  of  the  Church,  41 
his  preamble  and  resolutions  of  compromise  ,4^3 
moves  to  adopt  Bishops'  compromise,  65 
advocates  plan  of  separation,  97 
22* 


258  INDEX. 

Coleman  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  21 

Comfort  Mr., remarks  on  Finlcy's  substitute,  37 

Committee  on  Drs.  Capers  and  Olin's  proposition  of  com- 
promise, 12 
Committee  on  Drs.  Capers  and  Olin's  proposition,  failure 

of  to  agree  on  plan,  15 

Committee  on  Episcopacy  report  of  in  case  of  Bishop 

Andrew,  15 

Committee  of  ]Nine  appointed  on  Declaration,  72 

instructed  to  report  constitutional  plan 

of  division,  72 

Compromise,  proposition  for,  by  Drs.  Capers  and  Olin,  12 

recommended  by  the  Bishops,  64 

rejected,  67 

vote  on,  67 

Compromise,  plan  for  by  Holston  Conference,  128 

rejected  by  Tennessee  Conference,     132 

Mississippi  "  137 

Georgia  "  152 

Florida  "  153 

Alabama  "  157 

Convention  recommended  by  Southern  delegates  at  N.  Y.  104 

meets  in  Louisville,  169 

Conferences  represented  in,  169 

organized  by  appointment  of  President  and 

Secretary  pro  tem.  169 

names  of  delegates  in,  170 

resolution  of  inviting  Bishops  to  preside,  170 

election  by  of  Secretary  and  assistant,  171 

appointment  of  committee  on  public  worship,  171 

to  prepare  rules,     171 
to  publish  proceed- 
ings, 172 
rules  of  order  for  adopted,                                    172 
Address  to  by  Bishop  Soule  on  accepting  chair,  173 
Committee  on  Missions  appointed  by,                 176 
on  organization,                                  176 
instructions  of  to  committee  on  organization,  178 
Committee  on  Education  appointed  by,              180 
Committee  of  Finance,                                           180 
Committee  on  Book  Concern,  &c.,  appointed 

by,  and  petitions  referred  to,  182-3  &  4 

resolutions  of  to  restrict  debate,  183 

Dr.  Smith  adopted  by,  184 

Report  of  Committee  on  Missions  taken  up,     185 

and  letter  adopted,  189 

on  Organization  read  to,  185 


INDEX.  259 

Convention,  Report  of  Committee  on  Organization  taken 

up,  first  resolution  adopted,  186 

second       "  "  187 

additional  report  adopted  by,  188 

report  to  by  financial  committee,  194 

resolution  by  Education  Committee,  adopted  by,  104 
Book  agents  appointed  by,  195 

report  on  Book  Concern  adopted,  195 

report  on  History  of  Organization,  197 

report  on  organization  adopted,  199 

invite  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  to  unite  with 

the  South,  199 

Response  of  Bishops  to,  200 

committee  of  revision  appointed  by     •  199 

Report  on  Transylvania  University  adopted,    201 

Pastoral  Address  of,  202 

resolutions  of  concerning  border  societies,  &c.,  106 

of  concerning  Pastoral  Letter,  106 

its  influence  on  the  public  mind,  235 

Crandall  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  Capers  and  Olin's  proposition,  14 

Crowdcr  Mr.,  remarks  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  22 

D 

Declaration  of  Southern  Delegates,  71 

referred  to  Committee  of  Nine,  72 

Decision,  final  in  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  68 

vote  on,  68 

Delegates  from  South  meet  at  New  York  after  General 

Conference,  104 

recommend  plan  of  operation,  104 

a  Convention,  104 

Address  to  the  Church  in  the  South,  105 

Division  of  the  Church  predicted  as  result  of  action  of 

General  Conference,  21 

of  Church  property  provided  for,  91 

commissioners  appointed  to  make,  92 

desirable  apart  from  slavery  question, 

Dr.  Elliott,  93 

Drake  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  Finley's  substitute,  26 

proposed  resolution,  27 

resolution  of  instruction,  179 

Dunwody  Mr.,  remarks  of,  48 

Durbin  Dr.,  his  remarks  on  Capers  and  Olin's  compromise 

proposition,  14 

remarks  on  Finley's  substitute,  60 

regolution  of  compromise,  61 


260    ,  INDEX. 


E 


Early  ]Mr.,  his  remarks  on  Capers  and  Olin's  proposition,      15 
Effect  on  the  South  of  rejecting  the  exposition  of  slavery 

law  given  in  the  resolution  of  1840,  10 

Elliott  Dr.  proposed  to  refer  Declaration  to  committee,  72 

advocated  division,  98 

Events  subsequent  to  the  Convention,  234 

Excitement  produced  by  Bishop  Soulc's  invitation  to  Bish- 
op Andrew,  1G3 
Expediency,  doctrine  of,  19 

opposed,  20  &21 

advocated,  21  &  22 

Expost  facto,  Mr.  Spencer's  construction  of,  22 

Exposition  of  slavery  law  in  Bishops'  address  1840,  7 

in  address  of  General  Conference 
of  1840  to  British  Conference,  7 

by  Rev.  J.  B.  Finley,  7 

by  Report  of  1840,  9 

Expectation  of  difficulties  in  General  Conference  of  1844,      1 


Failure  of  Capers  and  Olin's  compromise  plan,  15 
P'"ast  day  appointed  with  reference  to  the  Convention 

by  Kentucky  Conference,  111 

Mississippi         "  137 

'                                                              Arkansas            "  139 

Indian  Mission  "  148 

Texas                 "  155 

Alabama            "  157 

Filmore  Mr.,  advocates  plan  of  separation,  95 

explains  object  of  changing  0th  restriction,  99 

Finley  Mr.,  his  resolution  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  23 

i-emarks  on         "  "  "  23  &  47 

advocates  plan  of  separation,  94 

Florida  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  153 

G 

Griffith  Mr.,  his  remarks  against  laws  of  Maryland,  5 
preamble  and  resolutions  against  Bishop 

Andrew,  17 

remarks  on  said  resolution,  18 

opposed  to  plan  of  separation,  93 

Georgia  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  151 

Report  of  on             "  148 

General  Superintcndency,  remarks  on,  61 


INDEX.  261 

H 

Ilamline  Mr., his  speech  on  Finley's  resolution,  35 

advocates  plan  of  separation,  97 

explains  object  of  changing  6th  restriction,      98 
Harding's  case — its  influence  on  that  of  Bishop  Andrew,       4 
appeal  introduced,  2 

proceedings  of  Baltimore  Conference  on,      2 
statement  of,  3 

Hedding,  Bishop,  withdraws  his  name  from  the  compromise,  66 
History  of  resolution  of  1840  explanatory  of  slavery  law,       8 
organization  of  M.  E.  Church,  South,  provided 
for  by  Convention,  19S 

HoLston  Conference,  action  of  subsequent  to  the  Conven- 
tion, 250 
resolutions  of  on  divi?jion,  128 

I 

Indian  Mission  Conference,  resolution  of  on  division,  147 

Influence  of  the  Convention  on  the  public  mind,  235 

Instruction  to  committee  on  slavery,  2 

of  Nine,  72 

asked  by  the  Bishops  concerning  Bishop  An- 
drew, 88 

K 

Kentucky  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  109 
address  of  on  division,  &c..  Ill 
action  of  subsequent  to  the  Louis- 
ville Convention,  246 


Letter  of  Bishop  Soule  explaining  his  course  in  case  of 

Bishop  Andrew,  163 

Longstreet  Dr.,  his  remarks  on  Finley's  substitute,  31 

presents  his  declaration  of  Southern  dele- 
gates, 71 
remarks  on  the  declaration,  72 

M 

Marriage,  the  oflense  of  Bishop  Andrew,  23 

Meeting  of  Southern  delegates  after  General  Conference 

at  New  York,  104 

of  Bishops  in  New  York,  July,  1845,  238 

Ministers  of  every  grade  and  office  at  liberty  to  adhere 

North  or  South,  91 


262  INDEX, 

Missouri  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  132 

Memphis             "                 "                          "  125 

Mississippi          "                "                         "  135 

Missionary  report  and  letter,  189 
Morris,   Bishop,  declines  withdrawing  his  name  from  the 

compromise,  66 

letter  to  W.  S.  McMurry,  248 
Missouri  Conference,  resolve  to  pay  the  Bishops,  allowance 

refused  by  Illinois,  246 
action   of  subsequent  to  the  Louis- 
ville Convention,  250 

N 

Names  of  signers  to  Protest,  8 

North  Carolina  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  142 

North  Ohio  Conference,  action  of  against  the  South,  239 

Nullifying  Resolutions  of  the  Ohio  Conference,  241 

Illinois          "  243 

O 

Ohio  Conference,  action  of  against  Bishop  Soule,  240 
Olin  Dr.,  remarks  on  Finley's  substitute,  23 
remarks  on  declaration,  72 
resolutions  explaining  General  Conference  action,    72 
advocates  just  and  liberal  measures  toward  the 
South,  238 
Opinion  of  Justice  Merrick  on  impracticability  of  emanci- 
pation in  Maryland,  3 
Judge  Key  on  same  point,  4 
Opposition  to  Bishop  Soule's  presiding  in  Northern  Con- 
ferences, 236 
Ordination  may  be  dispensed  with,  Mr.  Ilamline,  37 
Organization,  report  on,  207 


Paine  Dr.  reported  plan  of  separation,  90 

Parties  meet  to  arrange  plans  of  prosecutfon  and  defence,  17 

Pastoral  address  by  Convention,  202 

Peck  J.  T.  of  Troy,  reply  to  Mr.  Pierce,  31 

opposed  Bishops'  compromise,  65 

Peck  Dr.,  his  reply  to  Dr.  Bascom's  book,  138 

Permission  given  to  form  separate  connection,  91 

Pierce  G.  F., remarks  on  Finlcy's  substitute,  29 

Pierce  Dr.  gives  notice  of  Protest,  90 
Power  of  General  Conference  over  a  Bishop  absolute,  Mr. 

Hamline,  38 


IKDEX.  203 

Position  of  the  three  parties  after  the  action  in  Harding's  case,  1 1 

Power  of  General  Conference  over  Bishops,  18 

Plan  of  separation  presented,  90 

Plan  of  operations  proposed  by  Southern  delegates  at  N.  Y.,  104 

Proceedings  of  Baltimore  Conference  in  case  of  Harding,  2 

commenced  in  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  15 
Primitive   Church  not  more  closely  united   than   M.  E. 

Church  after  division,  Dr.  Elliott,  93 
Publication   by  the    Bishops,  explaining  their  course  to- 
wards Bishop  Andrew,  165 
Protest,  names  signed  to,  87 
ordered  to  record,  88 
committee  to  reply  to  appointed,  88 
of  Southern  delegates  presented,  73 
of  the  minority  of  the  Ohio  Conference,  242 

R 
Remarks  on  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  by 

Mr.  Griffith,  18 

Dr.  Winans,  20 

Mr.  Bowen  of  Oneida  Conf,  21 

Dr.  L.  Pierce  of  Ga.       "  21 

Mr.  Berry  man,  '21 

Coleman,  21 

Stringheld,  21 

Crowder  of  Va.        "  22 

Spencer  of  Pittsburgh,  22 

Dr.  Bangs,  22 

Remarks  on  Finley's  Eubstitute,  by  Dr.  Ohn,  23 

Mr.  Drake,  26' 

Slicer  of  Bait.,  27 

Crandall,  27 

Cass  of  N.  H.,  27 

G.  F.  Pierce,  29 

Dr.  Longstreet,  81 

J.  T.  Peck,  31 

Mr.  Green  of  Tenn.  34 

Hamline,  35 

Comfort,  37 

Dr.  Smith  of  Va.,  37 

Mr.  Collins  of  Bait.,  41 

Sehon,  40 

Dr.  Winans,  46 

Mr.  Finley,'  47 

Cartwright,  47 

Stamper,  47 

Dr.  Durbin,  60 

Dr.  Capers,  62 


264  INDEX. 

Remarks  on  the  Declaration,  by  Mr.  Sandford,  72 

Dr.  Longstreet,  72 

Dr.  Olin,  72 

Remarks  in  favor  of  Plan  of  separation,  Dr.  Elliott,  93 

Dr.  Lucky,  94 

Dr.  Bangs,  94 

Mr.  Filmore,  95 

Mr.  Finley,  96 

Mr.  Ham  line,  97 

in  opposition  to,                        Mr.  Griffith,  93 

Mr.  Cartwright,  83 

in  favor  of  positive  boundary,  Dr.  Bond,  97 

plan  of  separation,  Mr.  Collins,  97 

in  opposition  to          "             Mr.  Sandford,  98 

Remarks  explaining  object  of  changing  sixth  restrictive 

rule,                                                            Dr.  Winans,  98 

Mr.  Hamline,  983 

Mr.  Filmore,  99 

Dr.  Bangs,  94 

Reply  of  Drs.  Durbin,  Peck  and  Elliott  to  Protest,  101 

brief  analysis  of,  102-3 

denies  that  the  action   against  Bishop  Andrew 

was  judicial  or  piinitive,  102 
asserts  that  the  Church  never  a  had  slaveholding 

Bishop,                                                                        ^102 
inconsistencies  in,  102 
charges  Bishop  Andrew  with. impeachable  offense,  102 
produced  excitement,  103 
singular  proceedings  on,  103 
vote  on  recording  and  printing  it,  103 
Report  of  South  Carolina  Conference  on  division,  143 
Georgia,                          "                  "  148 
Resolution  introduced  instructing  committee  on  slavery,  2 
of  inquiry  in  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  15 
of  Mr.  Griffith  against  Bishop  Andi'ew,  17 
of  Mr.  Finley,  a  substitute,  23 
proposed  by  Mr.  Drake,  27 
of  compromise  by  Mr.  Collins,  42 
Dr.  Durbin,  61 
of  Slicer  and  Sargent  declaring  action  in  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew  advisory,    and 
postponing  case  until  1848,  [69 
laid  on  table,  69 
Resolutions  on  Division  by  Dr.  Capers,  70 
referred  to  Committee,  71 
of  Dr.  Olin  explanatory  of  Southern  Confer- 
ence action,  73 


INDEX.  2G5 

Resolutions  instructing  Committee  of  Nine  to  report  consti- 
tutional plan  of  division,  72 
explanatory  of  action  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  89 
votes  on,  89 
equivocal  character  of,  90 
of  Kentucky  Conference  on  division,  &c.,  109 
Missouri  125 
Holston  128 
Tennessee  130 
Memphis  132 
Mississippi  135 
Arkansas  137 
Virginia  140 
North  Carolina  142 
South  Carolina  146 
Indian  Mission  147 
Georgia  151 
Florida  153 
Texas  154 
Alabama  156 
Resolutions  of  Bishop's  council  at  'New  York,  237 

its  salutary  infkience,  237 

North  Ohio  Conference  nullifying  Plan,  240 

Ohio    Conference    ejecting  Bishop  Soule 

from  the  chair,  241 

Restrictive  rules,  provision  for  changing,  91 

Annual  Conferences  refuse  to  change,  168 

reasons  for  changing,  not  division,  98 

S 

Sandford  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  19 

remarks  on  Declaration,  72 

Separation,  rule  to  be  observed  with  regard  to,  91 

Slavery  law,  construction  of  by  Mr.  Collins,  6 
exposition  of  by  General  Conference  of  1840,     7 

reflections  on  Mr,  Collins'  construction  of,  7 
exposition  of  in  Bishops'  address  to  General 

Conference  of  1810,  7 
exposition  of  in  address  of  General  Confer- 
ence of  1840  to  British  Conference,  7 
exposition  of  by  Rev.  J.  B.  Finley,  7 
by  the  Report  of  1840,  9 
Smith  Dr.,  his  remarks  on  Capers  and  Olin's  proposition,  15 
his  explanation   of  a  rumor  about  Northern 

movements,  17 

Speech  on  Finley 's  substitute,  37 
23 


■iS>t>  lMii:\. 

Smith  ]);■.,  his  res^ohition  instriictini;  Coiiiniittee  on  Organi- 
zation, 1>;9 

Societies,  stations,    and  Conferences  to  decide  on  adher- 
ence, 91 
Southern  delegates  meet  after  General  Conference  forcon- 

siilrati<ni,  104 
Plan  of  opefations  proposed  by  them,  104 
South  grew  more  calm  and  North  less,  as  controversy  pro- 
gressed, 108 
Southern  Delegates,  their  course  approved  by 

Kentucky  Coaf.,  110 

Missouri  127 

HoLston  129 

Tennessee  131 

Memphis  134 

Mississippi  136 

Arkansas  139 

,                                                 Virginia  141 

South  Carolina  147 
Indian  Mission  149 
Georgia  152 
Florida  153 
Texas  154 
South  denounced  as  a  secession  by  leading  Northern  papers,  235 
Soule,  Bishop,  Address  to  General  Conference,  48 
adheres  to  the  compromise,               •  66 
Spencer  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  22 
State  of  things  immediately  preceding  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844,                      *  1 
Stamper  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  Fiuley's  substitute,  47 
Stringfield  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  21 
Supremacy  of  the  General  Conference  asserted,  35 
Superintendency  general,  remarks  on,  61 

T 

Tennessee  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  129 
Texas  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  154 
Transylvania  Univer.sity,  resolutions  concerning  it  by  Con- 
vention, 201 
Tennessee  Conference,  action  of  subsequent  to  the  Con- 
vention, 252 

V 

Virginia  Conference,  resolutions  of  on  division,  140 

Vote  of  General  Conference  on  appeal  of  Harding,  6 

Bishop  Andrew's  case,         67 


INPFA-.  2U7 

Vote  of  General  Conference  on  Bisho})'s  compromise,  G7 

Mitcheirs  resolution,  89 
first  resolution  in  plan  of 

separation,                 ^  99 

2d,  3d,  and  4th,  100 

the  Reply  to  the  Protest,  1 03 

Vote  of  Kentucky  Conference  on  resolutions  on  division,  109 

Memphis  132 

North  Carolina  143 

Georgia  148 

Indian  Mission  148 

Florida  153 

W 

Waugh,  Bishop,  adheres  to  the  Bishop's  compromise,  66 

Winans  Dr.,  his  remarks  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  20 

Finley's  substitute,  46 
declares  the  South  satisfied  with  the  Bishops' 

compromise,  67 
explains  object  of  changing  6th  restriction,  98 
his  resolution  instructing  Organizing  Commit- 
tee of  Convention,  178 


DATE  DUE 


NTED  IN  U.S    A. 


ksr  j»-.'ki\jiw;  .^Bi 


